Violation or not - let's make a list
 

I don't think there's a situation that has been discussed here as much as "over and back" violations during a throw-in. How about if we make a comprehensive list that newbies (and others) can study and perhaps carry with them in their bags so they can review them from time to time? Here's a bunch of scenarios - you guys post the answers. In each case, A1 is the thrower-in and is inbounding in team A's frontcourt on the sideline.

a) A2 is standing in backcourt, jumps and catches the ball in the air and then lands with both feet in frontcourt.

b) A2 is standing with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt and catches the inbound pass - he then lifts the frontcourt foot

c) A2 is standing in frontcourt, jumps and catches the ball in the air and then lands with both feet in backcourt.

d) same as a), except A2 lands with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt

e) same as c), except A2 lands with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt

f) A2 is standing in frontcourt, the ball deflects off him into the backcourt and he retrieves the ball with both feet in backcourt

g) while the inbound pass is in the air, Coach A calls you a fu***ing idiot, the ball hits A2 in the head while he is standing in the frontcourt, caroms off and hits Coach A in the crotch, doubling him over and causing him to scream

OK - g) was a trick example. We all know the correct answer is to laugh hysterically at Coach A while issuing the flagrant T and hope someone had their video cam on.

You can post other examples if you wish. Have fun, guys.

<big grin=""> :D</big>

Learned something today. I even pulled out the book and noticed that this only applies to a person jumping from the frontcourt. Thanks.

a) A2 is standing in backcourt, jumps and catches the ball in the air and then lands with both feet in frontcourt.
Legal.

b) A2 is standing with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt and catches the inbound pass - he then lifts the frontcourt foot
I think this is legal.

c) A2 is standing in frontcourt, jumps and catches the ball in the air and then lands with both feet in backcourt.
Legal.

d) same as a), except A2 lands with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt
Legal, and what Nevada said. As long as his backcourt foot lands first followed by his frontcourt foot, he's fine.

e) same as c), except A2 lands with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt
Legal.

f) A2 is standing in frontcourt, the ball deflects off him into the backcourt and he retrieves the ball with both feet in backcourt
Legal. No team control is established on a deflection.

g) while the inbound pass is in the air, Coach A calls you a fu***ing idiot, the ball hits A2 in the head while he is standing in the frontcourt, caroms off and hits Coach A in the crotch, doubling him over and causing him to scream
Get him an ice pack.

What could possibly be illegal about it? A2 has backcourt status the entire time. A2 starts with backcourt status as he is standing with one foot on each side of the line. A2 catches the ball without moving and thus still has backcourt status. A2 picks up his frontcourt foot and continues to maintain his backcourt status as his other foot is still touching the backcourt.

What are going to penalize him for ... a back and back vilolation? :D

You're welcome. That's a nuance that not many people know.

PS I'm glad that you actually went and looked it up to convince yourself instead of just taking my word for it.
That kind of diligence will pay off as you will certainly remember it better.

Uh-oh...
 

[QUOTE
f) A2 is standing in frontcourt, the ball deflects off him into the backcourt and he retrieves the ball with both feet in backcourt
Legal. No team control is established on a deflection.


OK- I'm confusing myself on this now- maybe I need more information.

I am assuming that A has team control in the frontcourt. Teammate of A2 passes him the ball, is deflected by B1, hits A2 and caroms into the backcourt where A2 goes to get it.

Isn't that last team control-last to touch in frontcourt-first to touch in backcourt = violation? Where am I going astray?

Z

Moron Alert!
 

OK, it seems to me that I actually did not read the OP correctly.

We are talking about an inbounds play, correct? And we all know that there is no team control on an inbounds pass...

So, if I have now read the OP correctly, I would agree that A2 retrieving the ball in the backcourt is not a violation.

Apparently those of you that are literate already knew this...

Z

:D

It only took you 3 minutes to figure it out.

For some of us it takes a whole lifetime to figure out we're a moron.

Hey, I'm no moron.


Waaaait a minute....

I think you mean "maroon".

http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress..../bugsbunny.jpg

Hey, do you know how to keep a moron in suspense?

I'll wait for M&M to ask.

Hey, I'm pretty sure that's going to offend a certain group of people.

Like Sarah Palin? :rolleyes:

I was thinking more along the lines of David Letterman.

Aye

Now, consider a former version of the rule to see if this is really the desired interpretation or not...

From 2003-04 (and others)

<DL>SECTION 9 BACKCOURT <DD>A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which is in team control after it has been in the frontcourt, if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. <DD>EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. <DD>EXCEPTION 2: It is not a violation if a defensive player who jumped from frontcourt, secures control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she returns to the floor with one or both feet in backcourt. </DD></DL>Note that the throwin exception doesn't make a distinction between jumping from the frontcourt or backcourt....the player may land with one or both foot in the backcourt. It also makes no mention of which one comes down first. The fact that the other exception that mentions the location of the jumper (frontcourt) is only relevant since it implies team control is established in the frontcourt the moment the player catches the ball but an exception is granted allowing that player, who has just made a good defensive play to steal the ball, to land in his/her backcourt. If the same player had jumped from their backcourt, there would be no issue of establishing team control in the frontcourt merely by catching the ball having jumped from the frontcourt.
The editorial change to move the exceptions into the main articles never intended to change the rule (otherwise they wouldn't have been called an editorial clarification), only to reword it into the mainline and not as exceptions. However, as worded, it actually may appear to have changed the rule unintentionally.

I believe the apparent limitation relative to allowing a player to jump only from the frontcourt is really an oversight in the re-wording...a wording that is written to match the common cases rather than an intended limitation that turns, into a violation, a play that is essentally the same but less common and is, physically, far more difficult to end up in .

The general principle behind the exceptions/rule remains: that the first player touching the ball and player securing control of the ball which was not in his/her team control is allowed to make a normal landing in the backcourt no matter where the first foot comes down.

So, once you look at this logically and understanding what is behind the rule and where it came from...the point of establishing team control, situation D above should not a violation no matter where the player jumps from nor which foot comes down first.