Backcourt or not?!?
 

OK, I have been looking in the rule book, and I am 99% sure, but wanted to see what you all say...

A1 inbounding the ball in the frontcourt, passes to A2. A2 recieves ball in the air, comes down one foot on the division line, one foot in the backcourt.

A2 begins dribble, and moves both feet into backcourt.

Backcourt violation, correct? (RULE 9.9.1)

The foot on the line established front court?

Ask yourself this - is the division line in a team's front or back court?

If he was dribbling, then "3 points" apply. Ball and two feet... so when the dribbler began his dribble he had backcourt status since one foot was in the backcourt.

Therefore, this isn't a violation.

His feet both came down, stopped, then began his dribble, and moved into the backcourt. His front foot was on the line, toes over the line in the frontcourt.

I understand 3 point when dribbling, but isn't this different?

No, it is not backcourt violation IMO. Regardless of where the throw in occurs, no team has possession on the throw in until the ball is in control by Team A or B. So, therefore there is not back court violation.

That is how I understand that question/rules, please let me know if I am wrong because I would not call the violation.


Oscar

If his foot was on the line, then at that moment he had back court status. He can safely retreat to the back court and not violate.

Remember, the edge of the lines are the only parts that count. In this case, the edge of the line closest to the frontcourt is the only part that matters. Once he's stepped across that front edge (no matter if he's only 1/2" past it) he has back court status. Similar to how a player is out of bounds when he steps on the EDGE of the line closest to the court.

Red: It doesn't matter where the player jumps from since this is a throw-in.

Blue: When A2 was holding the ball straddling the division line A2 has backcourt status. When A2 began his dribble he had backcourt status since at least one foot was in the backcourt (you didn't say where the ball was but it doesn't really matter).

Would it be a violation If his foot was not only on the line, but over the line (half in FC, half in BC), then subsequently dribbled into the BC?

After A1 lands with possession, the throw-in exemption is over (I think).
I see A1 with one foot in BC with other foot on the division line and touching FC.
Wouldn't that give A1 FC status? Therefore, the movement to both feet in the BC results in a BC violation?
(Note the ?'s. Help me if necessary).

Nope. Still has BC status. Remember the division line is in the BC. If the player is straddling the division line they still have BC status.

My answers in red.

thanks, that makes sense. When you think about it separate from the Throw-in (because it ended) that no call is easy.

If a player is touching both the BC and the FC, the player is in the BC.

No. The division line is in the BC, so when he has one foot in the FC and one in the BC, he has BC status. He can then go back into the BC without violating.

Now, if he picks his BC foot up and pivots and puts it back down in the BC, it would be a violation.

With a few moments of thought (after your responses), of course. When transitioning from BC to FC, One has BC status until nothing is in the BC and something is in the FC. (My simple rule of thumb)

Thanks for the kindness on this simple concept that perplexed me. :o

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.