Backcourt or not

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, you agree there's no violation, right? I understand though, you're probably recovering from having to be in Wisconsin over the weekend...

Good point, and I keep seeing Penny Marshall in my head singing a Disney song.

And I agree there's no violation, but I also question whether the establishment of team control would constitute the last touch in the FC or the first touch in the BC based on the dreaded interp; or persuant to the interp, if it would constitute both.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good point, and I keep seeing Penny Marshall in my head singing a Disney song.

And I agree there's no violation, but I also question whether the establishment of team control would constitute the last touch in the FC or the first touch in the BC based on the dreaded interp; or persuant to the interp, if it would constitute both.

Too bad, sounds serious. Take 2 bratwurst and call me in the morning.

The difference between this sitch and the interp is in this sitch, team control is only first established in the back court. The interp has team control already established in the front court before the ball goes to the back court. The wording in the interp even mentions, "Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Too bad, sounds serious. Take 2 bratwurst and call me in the morning.

The difference between this sitch and the interp is in this sitch, team control is only first established in the back court. The interp has team control already established in the front court before the ball goes to the back court. The wording in the interp even mentions, "Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status."

Good point. But the rest of the interp renders that little portion meaningless, I think. I'm fairly certian the committee would issue an interp or case play confirming it as not a violation; but the confusion inspired by their ill-considered interp gives cause to wonder. None of us would have predicted that interp, either.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good point. But the rest of the interp renders that little portion meaningless, I think. I'm fairly certian the committee would issue an interp or case play confirming it as not a violation; but the confusion inspired by their ill-considered interp gives cause to wonder. None of us would have predicted that interp, either.

I'm not a big fan of the interp either, but I don't think it has any bearing on the OP's sitch. In the interp, I think what they're trying to say is A2's touch in the back court satisfies two requirements for the violation - it gives the ball both back court status and makes A2 the "first to touch in the back court" at the same time. It also specifically mentions team control has already been established. In the case of the throw-in, team control is only established once the ball is caught in the back court. Even using the interp, the ball has front court status from the bounce, A is also the first to touch in the back court, but team control is never established until A caught it, in the back court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not a big fan of the interp either, but I don't think it has any bearing on the OP's sitch. In the interp, I think what they're trying to say is A2's touch in the back court satisfies two requirements for the violation - it gives the ball both back court status and makes A2 the "first to touch in the back court" at the same time. It also specifically mentions team control has already been established. In the case of the throw-in, team control is only established once the ball is caught in the back court. Even using the interp, the ball has front court status from the bounce, A is also the first to touch in the back court, but team control is never established until A caught it, in the back court.

I'm going off of memory here, but I recall that based on the rule, in order for the interp to work, the player catching the ball in the backcourt has to be both the first to touch the ball in the backcourt (obvious) and the last to touch it in the FC, thus causing it to go into the BC. If the 2 are not mutually exclusive, then the group who wrote the interp are capable of determining the OP to be a violation.

[mutantducky]

I would hate to explain to a coach that if A2 had only let the ball bounce it would not be a violation.

Would this change anything? Same but B1 knocks the ball off A3 who is in the frontcourt. A1 in backcourt catches the ball in air, after the ball bounces in the back/ or in the front then bouce again in the back.

ugh. maybe too much craziness. Honestly, official rule or not I just might let it slide.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I would hate to explain to a coach that if A2 had only let the ball bounce it would not be a violation.

Would this change anything? Same but B1 knocks the ball off A3 who is in the frontcourt. A1 in backcourt catches the ball in air, after the ball bounces in the back/ or in the front then bouce again in the back.

ugh. maybe too much craziness. Honestly, official rule or not I just might let it slide.

The point of the rule is that team control has to be established in FC. Not player control, just team control and ball location in the FC. So, during the window between the start of the throwin and any player gaining control, it really doesn't matter who touches it or where, as long as the player gaining control does not do it in the air jumping from his FC to his BC. In the OP, it doesn't matter.

The interp Nevada refers to, however, makes this not true during normal play when Team control has been established in the FC. And, for the record, if your play happens then, it's a violation. It doesn't matter if B1 tips the ball before it hits A3. If A3 is the last to touch it in the FC, and he or a teammate is the first to touch it in the BC, it's a violation as long as team control was ongoing when A3 touched it last in the FC.

[Mark Padgett]

OK, guys. Here's some nit-picky background NF rules info to help.

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

Also remember - during a time of no team control (like during an NF throwin), team control is established when a player establishes player control. Player control is defined as a player holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Hope that helps some of you.

BTW - I spent a month in Wisconsin one night.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going off of memory here, but I recall that based on the rule, in order for the interp to work, the player catching the ball in the backcourt has to be both the first to touch the ball in the backcourt (obvious) and the last to touch it in the FC, thus causing it to go into the BC.

Right, but again the interp specifically says team control was already established. In order for the interp to be applied in this case, the committee would have to also determine that the "holding" of the ball (to determine control) happens before or at the same time as the "touching", which determines both the "last to touch in the frontcourt" status and "the first to touch in the backcourt" status. That would be an even greater leap for the committee.

Again, while I'm not a fan of the interp, I can kinda see what they are trying to do. Let me give an example - A1 throws a pass that hits B1, who happens to be standing OOB. A1 "caused" the ball to go OOB by hitting B1 (the ball has the same location as the player it touches), so why doesn't B get the throw-in? Because of that same simultaneous theory - the touch by B1 was, in effect, the last to touch inbounds, and also the first to touch OOB, causing the violation by B1, not A1.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If the 2 are not mutually exclusive, then the group who wrote the interp are capable of determining the OP to be a violation.

Normally I would disagree, but if I find out they're meeting in WI, all bets are off.

[Adam]

The OOB rule is not the same as the backcourt rule. For OOB, it's very clearly defined that the player standing OOB causes the ball to be OOB when he touches it. For backcourt, this is not the rule.

It very specifically says the team must be the last to touch it in the FC and the first to touch it in the backcourt. If they can see one event satisfying both criteria, then their better than Scotty, because they can change the laws of physics.

And if they decide to meet in WI, I would hope they would tell all the members so someone doesn't wander around unaware that he's missing a powerful meeting of the minds that could change history.