Backcourt or not?!?

[representing]

READ PAST 9-9-1

NFHS 9-9-3 says:

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.

Remember that there is NO team control during throw-ins. So backcourt does not apply to throw-ins, because you can only have a backcourt violation when team control exists.

So in conclusion, you were wrong to make the backcourt call in this situation. It does not matter whether the first foot landed in front, on or behind the division line. Even if it did, he would have still be in the back court as he landed on the line. as someone mentioned above, all three must be in front of the line (both feet and the ball) before having full frontcourt status.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Guys, he was airborne when he caught the ball. It doesn't matter where his first foot lands. It can land completely in the FC and the second one land in the BC and it's still legal. He's allowed to perform a normal landing.

Thank you. I was getting rather irate reading the first 14 posts in this thread and no one having yet mentioned that point.

Originally Posted by representing

READ PAST 9-9-1

NFHS 9-9-3 says:

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.
----------------------------------------------------------
Remember that there is NO team control during throw-ins. So backcourt does not apply to throw-ins, because you can only have a backcourt violation when team control exists.

So in conclusion, you were wrong to make the backcourt call in this situation. It does not matter whether the first foot landed in front, on or behind the division line. Even if it did, he would have still be in the back court as he landed on the line. as someone mentioned above, all three must be in front of the line (both feet and the ball) before having full frontcourt status.

Not precisely. Right result, wrong reasons.

1. Although there is no team control during a throw-in, the backcourt rule applies to every play during a game, including to the above situation. It simply isn't a violation due to the very specific exception which you quoted. (Think of the NCAA level. There is team control during a throw-in, but they still have exemptions for throwing the ball into the backcourt from a throw-in.)

2. The throw-in ends and team control does exist as soon as A2 catches the throw-in pass in this scenario, so if it weren't for the specific exception of 9-9-3, then the play would be a backcourt violation.

3. The three-points rule (both feet and the ball having touched in the frontcourt) only applies during a dribble. The player in this situation caught the ball and landed while holding it. So we need to apply the rule for frontcourt/backcourt status while holding the ball, not while dribbling it. As others have written that rule is something touching the frontcourt and nothing touching the backcourt (which obviously includes the division line).


======================
Finally, I am concerned about those who seem to believe that if a player has one foot in the air and the other on the court such that the toe is over the division line and touching the frontcourt, but the rest of the foot is on the line or in the backcourt, then this would constitute frontcourt status. That is wrong. The toe means nothing. Since some part of the player is still touching the backcourt, that is his status--BACKCOURT. For the record, the player could have both feet completely in the frontcourt, but a hand touching the floor in the backcourt, and he would have backcourt status.

[grunewar]

Last night I was surprised by a backcourt violation......

BJV game. H1 shooting 2nd foul shot. Brick. Ball is rebounded by H2 who dribbles toward division line. Looks up and sees two of his team mates at the other end and heeves the ball to H3 who goes up for a shot.....at the wrong basket! V1 actually goes up to block his shot.

Partner blew it dead as a bizarre backcourt violation.

Our only question then was where to inbound the ball? Was H2 in his frontcourt when he threw it to H3? Therefore the violation occurred where H3 caught the ball (under the other basket). Or was H2 in the backcourt when he threw it? Therefore the violation happened right there? We determined H2 was in the backcourt when he relased the pass and inbounded the ball at the spot of the violation in the backcourt near the division line.

My P was all over it thankfully......

[eemich10]

Thanks for the clarity Nevada ref.

I didn't make this call, I was watching a BV game and saw this call made as a BC violation. Two veterans. So, they kicked the call. Whoops.

I agree that there are two different sets of scenarios, one based on the dribble, and one based on recieving the pass or ball in the air (or standing!)

Thanks for the discussion all, and clarification.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thank you. I was getting rather irate reading the first 14 posts in this thread and no one having yet mentioned that point.

You must of skipped over post 10.