Backcourt or not

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, except his point 3 is wrong.

Hopefully I can still salvage this, then, but let's go into this a little further. It's a backcourt violoation when:

9.9.1 - A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt

This seems to jive with the list provided by Mark, including point 3. Just trying to clear this one up is all.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball...............if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt........

Play:
A1 dribbling in the BC near the division line. He passes across the court to A2, also in the backcourt. The pass bounces in the FC before A2 catches it, standing in the BC. He picks up his dribble and starts to throw a pass and instead fumbles it one foot in front of his feet, and the ball bounces in the FC. He reaches and picks it up, still in the BC.

[Adam]

Hint, look in 9-9-2.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hint, look in 9-9-2.

Ok, I think I get it how #3 doesn't work in all situations.

The thing I don't understand with 9-9-2, however, is that the ball is considered in the frontcourt only if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt (4-4-2). Why, in 9-9-2 and in Snaqs' example, would the ball suddenly obtain frontcourt status is the player is still located in the backcourt?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Ok, I think I get it how #3 doesn't work in all situations.

The thing I don't understand with 9-9-2, however, is that the ball is considered in the frontcourt only if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt (4-4-2). Why, in 9-9-2 and in Snaqs' example, would the ball suddenly obtain frontcourt status is the player is still located in the backcourt?

Because the player is not holding nor dribbling the ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

In order to have a back court violation, four conditions must be present. If any one of these conditions is missing, there is no violation - no exceptions.

1) There must be team control
2) The ball must have achieved front court status
3) The team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in front court
4) That same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the back court

This requires only slight editing to cover the last situation:

3. The team in team control must have been the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This requires only slight editing to cover the last situation:

3. The team in team control must have been the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status. before it went to the backcourt.

Not that yours is wrong, but that's how I'd word it.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Because the player is not holding nor dribbling the ball.

Ok, but then can you make the case that it's an interupted dribble? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sense of the rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Ok, but then can you make the case that it's an interupted dribble? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sense of the rule.

Not in my play, as the dribble ended when he picked it up to throw the pass.

That said, you bring up an interesting play.

1. A1 dribbling along the division line with his feet in the BC and the ball bouncing in the FC.

2. He attempts to fake a defender to the left, but the defender has none of it and they both go to the offensive player's right.

3. The ball, however, gets away from the dribbler and drifts to the left. It's now an interrupted dribble and bounces in the FC.

4. The dribbler is quick enough to recover and regain his dribble. However, his back foot is still touching in the BC when he touches the ball.

There is no player control during an interrupted dribble, so the 3 point rule is no longer in play and this would be a violation.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not in my play, as the dribble ended when he picked it up to throw the pass.

That said, you bring up an interesting play.

1. A1 dribbling along the division line with his feet in the BC and the ball bouncing in the FC.

2. He attempts to fake a defender to the left, but the defender has none of it and they both go to the offensive player's right.

3. The ball, however, gets away from the dribbler and drifts to the left. It's now an interrupted dribble and bounces in the FC.

4. The dribbler is quick enough to recover and regain his dribble. However, his back foot is still touching in the BC when he touches the ball.

There is no player control during an interrupted dribble, so the 3 point rule is no longer in play and this would be a violation.

Ok, that makes sense. I was re-reading the Rule by Topic and was reminded that the 3 point rule is only in effect with a dribble. 9-2-2 makes more sense with that in mind.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not that yours is wrong, but that's how I'd word it.

That's right.

There's a case play where A1 in teh BC passes th ball to the FC. The ball hits an offical and bounces back to the BC, where A1 is the first to touch.

The ball was never touched (by a player) in the FC, yet it's a BC violation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Ok, but then can you make the case that it's an interupted dribble? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sense of the rule.

A pass is not an interrupted dribble.