Backcourt or No?

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I'll take a crack at it.

Assuming the player is not dribbling, FC gets established as soon as the player with the ball has something touching the FC and nothing touching the BC. So, assuming a player gets the ball straddling the line with one foot down in the BC and one down in the FC, he will have FC status if and when he lifts his BC foot. If he puts it back down, it's a violation.

If no player has control of the ball, it gains FC status as soon as it touches the FC (assuming there's team control by which you would define the FC).

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

just slipped on this and of course I should know it. I think FIFA has a different rule

Yes FIFA is different. FIFA stipulates that you must play the ball with your feet.

Sorry the soccer referee in me could not let that one pass.

[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?

[just another ref]

I would like to see the phrase "from the team not in control" removed from this rule. This is still confusing, as proven when we discussed (beat to death?) the numerous situations where neither team is in control yet the end of the play can still be a backcourt violation.

9-9-3: (revised) A defensive player, or any player during a jump ball or throw-in, may jump from his frontcourt, secure control etc.........


Do we agree that the defensive player exception still applies when there is no team control yet established after a throw-in?

A1's throw-in pass glances off the hands of A2. B1 leaps from his frontcourt, intercepts the pass and lands in his backcourt. Ruling: legal play

Even though there is no team control and no definition of defensive player, (but there was something obscure somebody quoted from a case play, maybe) I still consider B1 to be a defensive player in this circumstance.

[mbyron]

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.

The pivot foot is irrelevant to the BC violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The pivot foot is irrelevant to the BC violation.

Thank you.