Backcourt?
 

Had a debate with other officials. We all agree that on an inbounds pass from A1, A2 is allowed to jump from the frontcourt, catch the ball, and land in the backcourt without having a backcourt violation occur.

The debate is whether A2 is allowed to jump from the frontcourt, catch the ball, and while still in the air, pass the ball to A3 who is standing in the backcourt. In this case, A2 is the first to legally touch the ball on the inbounds pass. 9.9.3 covers the rule. The casebook says this exeption is only for the player that makes the initial touch on the ball. The confusing thing in the casebook is it deals with a touch by B1 in the frontcourt prior to A2 touching it.

Help us clear this situation up. Thanks.

I believe the case play is illustrative only (i.e., here's one example of how the 9.9.3 exemption works) rather than exclusionary for any instance outside that in the casebook play.

The throw in ends when the passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds (A2 in your example), when the passed ball touches or is touched by another player out of bounds except as in 7.5.7, or the throw-in team commits a throw-in violation.

The throw-in in your example ended when A2 touched the ball in the air. The exemption in 9.9.3 ended at the same time. The only player the exemption could apply to is A2 therefore, if he passes the ball to A3 in A's backcourt, I think that would be a violation.

You are correct.

The rule only allows the player who catches the ball to jump from FC and land in BC.

When A2 caught the ball, he had FC status, he established team control with the catch and ended the throw-in. When A3 touches the ball in the BC, violation.

While the above posters are all correct, I philosophically don't like the ruling in this case. Of course, I call it like it is...but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I'm of the opinion that player location (FC vs BC) should only established based on where a player actually is when they or a teammate initially obtains team control of the ball (on a throwin or steal)...and if in they are in the air, not until they land. As a result, the above play would not be a violation since the player in the air would have neither a frontcourt nor a backcourt location and could legally pass the ball to any player on their team.

Why you may ask? It just seems like a violation that penalizes something that isn't unfair to the other team.

For example, A1, on a throwin, passes the ball to an airborne A2, having jumped from A's frontcourt. B1 slightly tips the throwin pass just as A1 releases it. A2 catches the ball and lands in A's backcourt. By the current rules, this is a violation. But, there is no logicial nor equity/fairness argument why this should be a violation. It simply stops the game with a whistle...just because.

Violation, But Need Citation ...
 

It's a violation. I know that this is either a casebook play, annual interpretation, or a recent IAABO Refresher Test question, but I can't find it. Looked twice. Can anyone out there help me?

Billy
It's 9.9.1 in the casebook, Situation D.

9.9.1 SITUATION D: Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's
throw-in is deflected by B1; A2 jumps from Team A’s frontcourt, catches the ball
in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The
throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. A2 gains player and team control in
the air after having left the floor from Team A’s frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt
status. As soon as A2 lands in the backcourt, he/she has committed a back-
court violation. The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in
ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-3)

Almost Only Counts In Horseshoes And Hand Grenades ...
 

Thanks, but I was actually looking for a citation where the player catching the throwin pass while in a midair jump from frontcourt to backcourt (backcourt rule exception) makes a second pass to a teammate who is already in the backcourt. In the citation I'm thinking of there is no complicating deflection by a defensive player. Still looking for that one. Help, please.

I agree with Cameron. And there is no violation if airborne A2 tips the ball to A3 in the backcourt....

If you're talking about a throw-in where A2 is the first to legally touch the ball in bounds and is airborne after jumping from the frontcourt and taps to A3 in the backcourt, then yes, it is a violation.

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.)

Isn't it one of our key principles that the status of a player in the air is where they last touched?

What if the player was jumping in from out of bounds?

"You are where you were until you get where you are going."

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".

Yes, that is a key principle...but that doesn't mean we need to have FC/BC line in effect until the player lands.

Should the IB/OOB line also not be in effect until the player lands as well?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. It will never happen, though.

Or, one could ask, should the lane lines be in effect on a throw-in as well?

There are different areas on the court and they don't all need to be treated the same.

I'd say no. OOB lines are part of every play. All other lines are situational.

Bob...your thinking on this is? During throw ins? Example?

Irrelevant.

Why?

Because a player jumping from OOB will have committed a violation as soon as they touch the ball no matter if it was tipped or not and without regard to where they land.

A player, A1, jumping from thier FC to catch a throwin and landing in their backcourt may or may not be guilty of a violation depending on whether another player first touched the ball or not....as in a defender getting a fingertip on the ball just before A1 catches the ball.

The rule SHOULD be that the exception would apply until a team gains control of the ball (not just until the throwin ends)....and if such control is gained by an airborne player, that player is allowed a normal landing. I'm less inclined to make any argument that the exception should apply through a catch/pass to a teammate in the backcourt.

The only reason I asked this question was to respond to your comment about the principle of player location not applying to a backcourt violation until a player lands. To me that's just another exception we would need to remember.

Fwiw, I don't particularly like the throw-in exception; I would prefer all throw-ins be handled with all the normal player location and team control/player control rules in effect. But the committee decided to add the TI exception and the "good defense" exception to the backcourt violation. Ok. At least they kept other aspects in place - the TI exception ends when the TI ends. That's what makes this play easy enough for me - there's no additional "exceptions" to remember.

And I would prefer the exception apply to all situations in which team control is established by an airborne player, regardless of wether it's during a throwin, jump ball, or defensive play.

Perhaps a better way to write such a rule, rather than exceptions to the backcourt violation, would be to say that a the existance of a FC and BC for a team do not exist until there is player control by a player in contact with the floor inbounds. That would take care of all of the exceptions at the same time.

On initial review, that sounds good to me. I'd have to think about it some more though, to see if there are any other unintended consequences.

In the meantime, just use your influence over various members of the committee to get this under consideration.

Clarification on rule
 

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.

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 <B>on the floor</B>.

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? :D

I have no problem looking at both sides. :D

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? :D

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.

The exception does not end when TC is established, it actually ends when the throw-in ends. 4-42-5 tells us the throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by another player. It has nothing to do with control. The exception allows the first player to touch the ball to go from the FC to BC, but no one else.

So, considered this: A1 has the TI, A2 catches the pass while jumping from the FC to the BC, and lands in the BC. No violation because of the throw-in exception. Same play, except B1 is guarding the throw-in, and tips the throw-in pass before A2 catches it in the air and lands in the BC. Now we have a violation, because the TI ended on B1's tip, so A2 is guilty of the violation because they were not the first to touch when the TI ended. Doesn't seem "fair", but the ruling completely follows all of the applicable principles of the throw-in, player control, team control, and backcourt violation.

The change we would like to see would eliminate this quirky play as well.

Which side are you on again?

That is certainly what the rule is....

Are you talking about the current rule or the idea of what it could be?

I not sure which discussion/debate or which side of it you're participating in at the moment (given what you type next).
That was the whole point of the idea I made in post #6

Maybe we could just make up our minds only argue our own points and not each others? It would keep me from getting so confused! :p As it is, I can't decide if I agree with you and disagree with me or if I disagree with you and agree with me or me or me.

Like I'm supposed to know?

You and me both! :p

I was just responding to CoachP's comment about the exception ending with team control. And it points out the confusion that occurs when exceptions are made to some principles.

As usual, what I was saying and typing were 2 different things. :eek: I didn't mean that the throw in ended because of the TC established. Try it with the parenthesises...

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

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. Stupid exceptions...

Dang, my head hurts. I think it's time for a weekend. The only problem is, I'm not sure who's weekend I'm supposed to have?!? :eek:

Tell you what....since you're not sure, I'll just take both of them.:D

Me, I'll be spending a good part of the day tomorrow coaching soccer....I expect we'll get thouroughly crushed. :eek: Having an extra one would give me the time I need to get some yardwork and other chores done.