Another backcourt violation question
 

SITUATION: Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A-1's throw-in is deflected by a)B1 or b)A2. In both cases B2 jumps from Team B's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

The issue: is team B granted the exception in 9-9-3 for defensive players during Team A's throw-in?

BC violation in both cases. The throw-in ended and its allowances once the ball was legally touched. 4-42-5

Rule 9: SECTION 9 BACKCOURT

(From 03-04 book)

EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.
EXCEPTION 2: It is not a violation if a defensive player who jumped from frontcourt, secures control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he or she returns to the floor with one or both feet in backcourt.

(From 06-07 book)

ART. 3 . . . A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

According to the older rules, you'd clearly be wrong as exception 1 (the throwin exception) applied until someone was the first to secure control without regard to how many times it was touched or who touched it.


But according to the editorial rewrite that occured a couple years ago (one that wasn't supposed to change the meaning), the throwin exception appears to only apply until the throwin ends...when the ball is touched. This has been debated before and the rule does say that a player from the team not in control can legally catch the ball (with examples of who may catch it in parentheses)....but others say that the parentheses provides an exclusive list of when/who can catch the ball, not just examples.


However, the new version of the rule still always allows a defender the to catch the ball and land without violating. The question, then, is whether B1 is a defender. Can someone be a defender without the other team having team control? Hmmm.


I assert that the older rules give us insight into the meaning (since it was supposed to be an editorial change and not a rule change).....leading the the result that it is not a violation for B1.


They really took a clear rule and made it a mess when they rewrote it. In its former state, it was fully unambiguous. In its current form, it is ambiguous at best.

No backcourt violation, IMO, but there has been some disconcertion among the ranks on this issue as there was no team control before the ball was controlled by B2.

I'd rather they simply make this a blanket exception applying to any situation where a player initiates team control while in the air. Then it would apply to rebounds as well, which it currently does not.

Both are back court violations. The original post is a case book play.
This play and similar case plays were clairified as NFHS and IAABO interps for the 2007-2008 season.
The reason I know, is that I posted these questions on this board Nov. 2006. The questions generated a large amounts of replys. Basically a 50/50 split on violation vs. non-violation. Someone on this board brought the questions to NFHS and they responded and posted them in the interp section.

Isn't that a violation? :D

Agreed. I don't have a BC violation either, nor can I find this play in the Case Book.

Case book. Page 75. 9.9.1 Situation D.
Ask tjones1 for the past interps. 2007-2008

SITUATION 7: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1's deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

SITUATION 8: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: No violation, legal play. It doesn't matter if one foot lands before the other provided it is a "normal landing." Since there was no deflection, the throw-in had not ended. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

SITUATION 9: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt (Team B's backcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt and catches the ball in the air. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection (legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in Team B's frontcourt and then steps in Team B's backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a defensive player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

This case play is not the same as it was last year, which is the book I was looking in.

Seems to me the NFHS needs to define what a defensive player is, if they plan on changing rulings based on whether or not a player is on offense or defense. The ball being tipped does not changed the fact that B1 was considered to be a defender when the ball was given to thrower A1. If this is a BC violation, then the defensive player exception needs to be removed completely from the rule.

I'm still with Camron on this one.

I'll re-post it:

I'm sorry, but these are stupid case plays. To not consider B defenders is moronic, IMO.

Well... you have a choice. Enforce the ruling as per the interp, or disregard the rule and enforce the play the way you want. Who is going to know?:confused:
Who was the member that submitted the plays to NFHS?
Maybe we can get the interp changed to read the exception is for the 1st player (Team A member or Team B member) that securs control of the ball. Thus the deflection only directs the clock to start.:)

As BktBallRef points out, the exception is already in the rule for a defensive player. How is B1, during a throwin for A, not a defensive player? The interp doesn't really fit the rule. So some of us have to choose between enforcing the rule as we read it or enforcing it based on the interp.

And before we get all that excited about the interp, let's remember the other backcourt interp that we all so love and admire.

Can't. We all said FORGET IT! (or various versions thereof)