Backcourt or No?

[BballTip]

Shot goes up from A2.

Long rebound...Ball deflects off A3's hand at top of key. A4 grabs ball with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt.

Is this a violation?

I know there is no backcourt violation on a rebound becasue there is no team control, however since the ball was deflected off A3, does that mean the rebounding action is over or does the provision stand until control is secured?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BballTip

I know there is no backcourt violation on a rebound becasue there is no team control, however since the ball was deflected off A3, does that mean the rebounding action is over or does the provision stand until control is secured?

You can answer your own question: did A3's touch secure team control?

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by BballTip

Shot goes up from A2.

Long rebound...Ball deflects off A3's hand at top of key. A4 grabs ball with one foot in frontcourt and one foot in backcourt.

Is this a violation?

I know there is no backcourt violation on a rebound becasue there is no team control, however since the ball was deflected off A3, does that mean the rebounding action is over or does the provision stand until control is secured?

The latter, "rebounding action" has no bearing.

[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 eyezen

The latter, "rebounding action" has no bearing.

Strike one.

just having fun.

Once the shot was released, team control ended. When, in the OP, was it established again?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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