Backcourt or No?

[tjones1]

Deflecting off A3's does not establish team control for A. So to answer your question it "stands" until a team gains control.

If A4 was straddling the division line when he caught the ball (gained control) then it's nothing.

If A4 had one foot in the front court and the other in the air when he gained control then the foot that was in the air came down in the backcourt... then that would be a violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Deflecting off A3's does not establish team control for A. So to answer your question it "stands" until a team gains control.

If A4 was straddling the division line when he caught the ball (gained control) then it's nothing.

If A4 had one foot in the front court and the other in the air when he gained control then the foot that was in the air came down in the backcourt... then that would be a violation.

And, incidentally, if A1 caught the ball while airborne with FC status, then landed in the BC, it would be a violation. The exception does not apply during a rebound.

Also, if B1 caught the ball while airborne coming from the other direction, it would also be a violation when he lands.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also, if B1 caught the ball while airborne coming from the other direction, it would also be a violation when he lands.

I'd like to see it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I'd like to see it.

It could happen.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It could happen.

Very true...

Ahhh, I can see it now.... that explaination coming with a side of Whack!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Very true...

Ahhh, I can see it now.... that explaination coming with a side of Whack!

Best of both worlds.

[offici88]

I see/call this every year and the coach goes nuts. When a player comes down with the ball and one foot in the front court before the second foot in the back court, the pivot foot has been established and the violation must be called.

For some reason coaches believe the player has the chance to come down with the long rebound without regard to the mic-court line.

We'll see if this year is different...will probably see it tonight in my GV game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by offici88

I see/call this every year and the coach goes nuts. When a player comes down with the ball and one foot in the front court before the second foot in the back court, the pivot foot has been established and the violation must be called.

For some reason coaches believe the player has the chance to come down with the long rebound without regard to the mic-court line.

We'll see if this year is different...will probably see it tonight in my GV game.

Coaches think that way because a player is allowed to do that when receiving a throw-in, making a defensive steal, or securing a jump ball. They don't make the distinction that a player is specifically granted an exception during those actions, but not in this one.

I've never understood why the NFHS treats the situation with a long rebound differently because it is just another situation in which there is no team control before the airborne player secures the ball. However, the NFHS has made it clear over the past couple of years that there is no exception granted for securing a rebound and landing in the backcourt. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

[Adam]

I agree, Nevada. Before they clarified, I assumed it was intended for all situations in which team control was initially attained by an airborne player.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, Nevada. Before they clarified, I assumed it was intended for all situations in which team control was initially attained by an airborne player.

Me too.

[showbo]

Simply, no.

From reading your post, a simple deflection off of a players hand does not mandate team control, therefore, there is no back court violation.

Oscar

[mutantducky]

just slipped on this and of course I should know it. I think FIFA has a different rule so maybe that is why but for HS.

to establish frontcourt is it both feet, left and right, or two feet. right foot in and then back into BC and then into FC while left stays in FC. BALL is in FC. Is that FC.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, Nevada. Before they clarified, I assumed it was intended for all situations in which team control was initially attained by an airborne player.

Refresh my memory, please. Was there an interp which dealt with the long rebound specifically?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Refresh my memory, please. Was there an interp which dealt with the long rebound specifically?

No. The wording of the rule itself leaves doubt as to whether the bit in parentheses is meant to be all-inclusive or merely provide examples. We had that debate here on the board a few years ago. Some argued that only the situations provided were exempted; others (including me) argued that the provided situations were only examples and that the exception should apply to all situations where a player established team control while airborne. Then NFHS issued 9.9.1D, making it clear the parenthetical situations were meant to be all-inclusive.

[Adam]

Here's the thread with the initial discussion.Throw-in/Backcourt violation?