Backcourt?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That depends on how you define "tips" or "taps".

If it was a "catch and throw", then TC was established, so it's a violation. If it was a "deflection" (or "batting the ball away from other players")then TC wasn't established, so the play is legal.

(Or, if you would grant A's request for a TO at exactly the time A2 tipped / tapped the ball, then it's a violation; otherwise it's not.)

You're right. I didn't read carefully enough about the "tipped" part. I'm thinking of the OP and the case book play where A2 catches and throws to teammate A3 who is standing in the BC.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by zm1283

You're right. I didn't read carefully enough about the "tipped" part. I'm thinking of the OP and the case book play where A2 catches and throws to teammate A3 who is standing in the BC.

Bob beat me to it but yes, it's funny how on a throwin - an airborne A2 can or cannot trigger a violation based on tipping or "catch and pass" to a backcourt A3 player.

Too bad the rules cannot be written that show the backcourt/frontcourt line does not even exist until there is TC "on the floor".

[Damian]

It would best if the rules would say that during a throw in there is no backcourt nor front court until team control is established. When the player jumped, he was not in the front court because there was no front court nor backcourt since there was no team control when he left the floor.. So, while in the air, he can land anyplace and pass anyplace. The same would apply to a defender. He could jump in the air, catch the ball, while in the air and pass to a teammate that was defending in what would be their backcourt.

This would not apply to someone jumping in from out of bounds. OOB is always OOB.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Damian

It would best if the rules would say that during a throw in there is no backcourt nor front court until team control is established. When the player jumped, he was not in the front court because there was no front court nor backcourt since there was no team control when he left the floor.. So, while in the air, he can land anyplace and pass anyplace.

The only problem with wording it this way is you still have the issue of player location. Ok, so there was no FC/BC when the player jumped, before they caught the inbounds pass. But once they caught the pass, there is now team control, therefore there is now a FC and BC. Since the player location, while in the air, is the same as where they last touched, there is team control, their last location was the FC, and they will be the first to touch in the BC when they land.

That's why Camron added the caveat of no FC or BC existing until there is team control on the floor.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The only problem with wording it this way is you still have the issue of player location. Ok, so there was no FC/BC when the player jumped, before they caught the inbounds pass. But once they caught the pass, there is now team control, therefore there is now a FC and BC. Since the player location, while in the air, is the same as where they last touched, there is team control, their last location was the FC, and they will be the first to touch in the BC when they land.

That's why Camron added the caveat of no FC or BC existing until there is team control on the floor.

His idea could also work if you if you go with the thinking that since FC/BC didn't exist at the time of the jump, the placed jumped from was not FC or BC....but just inbounds.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

His idea could also work if you if you go with the thinking that since FC/BC didn't exist at the time of the jump, the placed jumped from was not FC or BC....but just inbounds.

True, but how would you specifically word that in the rules? How would you change the wording of player location to accomodate that? A player's location would be changing in midair, so you would have to include another exception of some sort. "A player's location in the air is the same as where they last touched the floor. An exception would be in the case of a throw-in, where a player who catches the ball in the air would only be considered to have inbounds status, with no front court or backcourt, whereas a player who catches the ball on the ground would have immediate front court or backcourt status, except on the second Tuesday of each week... (Ok, see why they don't have me writing rules?)

It just seems as though your idea of FC/BC not existing until there is team control on the floor seem a little cleaner to word, and wouldn't involve exceptions.

Wait a minute, am I arguing for your point, and you're arguing against your point?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

True, but how would you specifically word that in the rules? How would you change the wording of player location to accomodate that? A player's location would be changing in midair, so you would have to include another exception of some sort. "A player's location in the air is the same as where they last touched the floor. An exception would be in the case of a throw-in, where a player who catches the ball in the air would only be considered to have inbounds status, with no front court or backcourt, whereas a player who catches the ball on the ground would have immediate front court or backcourt status, except on the second Tuesday of each week... (Ok, see why they don't have me writing rules?)

It just seems as though your idea of FC/BC not existing until there is team control on the floor seem a little cleaner to word, and wouldn't involve exceptions.

Wait a minute, am I arguing for your point, and you're arguing against your point?

I have no problem looking at both sides.

I don't think his idea does what you think it does. There would not need to be an exception to the location rule. When the player jumped, where were they? While their location is considered to be where they last touched the floor, they didn't jump from the FC becasue FC didn't exist. The only thing that existed when they jumped was inbounds/out-of-bounds.