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.

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.

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

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.

Caught off guard.....
 

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...... :o

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.

You must of skipped over post 10. ;)