Backcourt or not
 

A1 throw in from front court, ball deflected by B1 in A's front court, bounces in front court and is caught by A2 who is standing in A's back court. Ball never bounced in backcourt. Is this a violation?

Assuming you're asking under NF rules, then no, it's not. Any other questions?

This question is not as simplistic as it first appears.
Most of us would say that this play is not a violation, and the reason is that Team A never established control in the frontcourt.

However, if one follows Situation 10 from the NFHS Interps a couple of years ago (2007-08), then an argument can be made that the ball was controlled while it had frontcourt status. I believe that is wrong and that Situation 10 is a bogus ruling, but it was an official NFHS ruling.

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Simple Simon ...
 

It is simple, in this particular case, because it occurs after a throwin. The "infamous" Situation 10 that you have cited refers to a ball being passed between teammates in the frontcourt, which, as you have described, is not as simple as it first appears.

Hey. You're interfering with Nevada's capacity to identify a cloud in every silver lining. :D

There is no such thing in the rules as "after a throwin." It's either during a throwin, or it's not. In the OP, the throwin is over, so it's not during a throwin.

Nevada is right, the same logic used by the FED in the interp would lead one to call this a violation.

Stupid, but true.

While I understand yours and Nevada's reasoning, I still am missing the one point that Billy brings up: when is team control established?

When it is caught.

Now shut up.

:D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yep, and the interp we're talking about no more fits all four criteria than the OP does.

I'm not trying to imply the backcourt rule is the same, I'm just trying to point out the committee is trying to use the same laws of physics in both cases. If you look at the definition of ball location, 4-4-4 says "A ball which touches a player or official is the <B>same as</B> the ball touching the floor at that individual's location." So, A1's pass that hits B1 OOB is the same as the ball touching the floor at that location, so by rule, A1 caused the ball to go OOB. That's definitely true if it hits an official standing OOB. But, there's the exception you correctly mentioned in 7-2. So, somehow, that exception allows that player to, in effect, be the last one to touch inbounds and cause the ball to be OOB at the same time. I said, "in effect", because I know it's not mentioned that way in the rule, and I'm extrapolating somewhat. But I'm just trying to point out a similar type of ruling to show they didn't pull the backcourt interp completely out of their a$$. (Just mostly, though.) I still agree the backcourt and OOB rules aren't the same. And I agree it still goes against the basic Player Location/Ball Location rules.

Maybe that wandering person wasn't told for a reason?... :D

Okay, i suppose I can relax now that you apparently agree with me.


Yeah, I can understand that.

Hey, wait a minute....

I Said What I Meant, And I Meant What I Said ...
 

The throwin ended when the ball touched B1. Since the throwin ended, this situation occurred after the throwin, but before team control was established. That's what I meant to say. I think.

The Infamous Situation Ten ...
 

Nevada is right about this casebook play being "odd", but the casebook play doesn't apply to the original post because team control has not yet been established. In Nevada's infamous casebook play, team control has already been established.

I understand what you were getting at, that the OP is, in contrast with the interp, a situation with no team control. Could be a shot, the original jump ball, or a throwin. I thought (at the time) you were looking at the throwin exception.

My point, however, in answer to your next post, is that while the interp very obviously mentions team control, the leap to that interp from the rule is much smaller than the leap from that interp to another one that says the OP is a violation.

If one event can qualify for two things that must happen at different points in time (the interp) in one instance, why can't they happen in another?

I agree that the team control thing, or the lack of it, would most likely help the committee keep their heads on this one.

I humbly suggest that we all put the one bogus interp behind us and do not mention it again rather that worrying about "If they said that it must mean that they also would say this if asked."

Let us not ask. Stick to the rule as we know it, and make the backcourt violation call, or in this case don't make it, accordingly.

And to anticipate the next question:

Have I decided to totally ignore the above referenced interp?

an emphatic yes

May I humbly suggest you take you suggestion and....

wait a second, wrong discussion. Sorry.

Look, I'm not saying the call should be made any way other than by rule. I'm not even saying Nevada's introduction of the interp into this thread wasn't somewhat gratuitous. But, this is a discussion board; and one with a history of taking a thread and extrapolating on other similar topics. This is especially common when a particular question is answered rather quickly and succinctly (as in this thread).

Feel free to ignore the thread or not (in the interest of not telling you what to do.)

That's the best, clearest, explanation I've yet seen on backcourt violations. Thanks for sharing it.

Yes, except his point 3 is wrong. ;)

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........

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.

Play:
A1 dribbling in the BC near the division line. <strike>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.</strike> 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.

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?

Because the player is not holding nor dribbling the ball.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

A pass is not an interrupted dribble.