Backcourt?

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Not really - in your case the only thing that needs to change is the definition of front court and back court. Neither exisits until there is player and team control on the floor. Player location wouldn't change, because they would still have a location of inbounds or OOB. They just would not have a location of FC or BC, because those locations don't exist for the purpose of a violation until the new definition kicks in. The same general theory as the lane - it doesn't really exist for the purposes of a violation until certain conditions are met first.

No messy exceptions needed.

So, is this what debate class is like - I argue your point, and you argue mine?

[CoachP]

I like all the reasoning/discussion. If A2 has the ball in mid air from catching a throw in, he has team control but is allowed per rule to make a normal landing w/o violation. Why shouldn't he be able to make a pass w/o violating?

Even though the throw in exception by rule has ended with team control established, it really still exists until the landing.