Over & Back?

[BillyMac]

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his or 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 the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

[Johnny Ringo]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

These three situations are not backcourt violations.

Three? I only count two in your post, am I missing something?

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

Three? I only count two in your post, am I missing something?

1. Throw in
2. Jump ball
3. Defensive player making a steal.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his or 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 the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

Yet another example of why it would be so much simpler for the common man (spectators), uncommon man (coaches) to understand and simpler for the even more uncommon man (referees) to enforce if the NFHS instituted the rule that ALL THREE ELEMENTS (BOTH FEET and the BALL) MUST be in the front court BEFORE a back court violation can occur.

No need for the "exceptions" -- nor any need for the end of the exceptions, etc.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Yet another example of why it would be so much simpler for the common man (spectators), uncommon man (coaches) to understand and simpler for the even more uncommon man (referees) to enforce if the NFHS instituted the rule that ALL THREE ELEMENTS (BOTH FEET and the BALL) MUST be in the front court BEFORE a back court violation can occur.

No need for the "exceptions" -- nor any need for the end of the exceptions, etc.

Your proposed "rule" wouldn't preclude the OP from being a backcourt violation. A1 has both feet in the frontcourt (albeit in the air, but he jumped from the frontcourt), caught the throw-in, making it in the frontcourt (particularly supposing that the throw-in was from a frontcourt sideline, or even endline). Team A now has team control, and the ball is in the frontcourt, both feet and the ball are in the frontcourt. Then A1 crosses the division line in midair and lands in the back court. This makes Team A the first team to touch the ball in the backcourt. If it is desired to not make this a backcourt violation, then there still needs to be a throw-in exception.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Your proposed "rule" wouldn't preclude the OP from being a backcourt violation. A1 has both feet in the frontcourt (albeit in the air, but he jumped from the frontcourt), caught the throw-in, making it in the frontcourt (particularly supposing that the throw-in was from a frontcourt sideline, or even endline). Team A now has team control, and the ball is in the frontcourt, both feet and the ball are in the frontcourt. Then A1 crosses the division line in midair and lands in the back court. This makes Team A the first team to touch the ball in the backcourt. If it is desired to not make this a backcourt violation, then there still needs to be a throw-in exception.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. My proposed rule says that the player must have ALL THREE POINTS in the front court BEFORE a backcourt violation can occur. The feet must be ON THE GROUND in the front court.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Wrong, wrong, wrong. My proposed rule says that the player must have ALL THREE POINTS in the front court BEFORE a backcourt violation can occur. The feet must be ON THE GROUND in the front court.

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that makes sense.

So are you of the opinion that the following plays should not be violations?:

1-While Team A is advancing the ball from their backcourt, A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2, who jumps from the frontcourt, catches the ball and lands in the backcourt.

2-While Team A is advancing the ball from their backcourt, A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2 who is standing with 1 foot in the frontcourt and the other foot off the floor. A2 places his foot on the floor in the backcourt.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts and what you think is fair.

Also, it seems that a team is restricted by one of these two things while they are in team control: a) not being able to go back into the backcourt; or b) having a 10 second backcourt count. My opinion is that when you make a change to the backcourt rule (exceptions excluded because they don't involve team control), then you probably must make a corresponding change to the 10 second rule to enable the count to be continued. I think this might make for some very confusing verbiage, but I might be wrong.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sseltser

then you probably must make a corresponding change to the 10 second rule to enable the count to be continued. I think this might make for some very confusing verbiage, but I might be wrong.

It's just the definition of "ball location" that needs to be changed. The officials would just need to learn to "count" longer.

One problem with the proposed change, though, is that if A1 passes (from the BC) to A2 (in the FC), and A2 just holds the ball, the count would (or should) continue. Then if A2 passes back to A1 (still in the BC), that's a legal play.

I think the current definitions are fine. I'd just like to see the exceptions applied to everyone who first gains TC (treating the excpetions as "examples" and not as "inclusive list").

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's just the definition of "ball location" that needs to be changed. The officials would just need to learn to "count" longer.

Or another: A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2, also in the backcourt. The pass is a bounce pass with spin (or a reach around pass) that bounces in the front court. How can the definition of "ball location" be changed to make it so that a ball that bounces in the frontcourt is not in the frontcourt?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that makes sense.

So are you of the opinion that the following plays should not be violations?:

1-While Team A is advancing the ball from their backcourt, A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2, who jumps from the frontcourt, catches the ball and lands in the backcourt.

2-While Team A is advancing the ball from their backcourt, A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2 who is standing with 1 foot in the frontcourt and the other foot off the floor. A2 places his foot on the floor in the backcourt.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts and what you think is fair.

Also, it seems that a team is restricted by one of these two things while they are in team control: a) not being able to go back into the backcourt; or b) having a 10 second backcourt count. My opinion is that when you make a change to the backcourt rule (exceptions excluded because they don't involve team control), then you probably must make a corresponding change to the 10 second rule to enable the count to be continued. I think this might make for some very confusing verbiage, but I might be wrong.

1. Correct. Current rules, even though the ball never crossed the division line, a backcourt violation has been committed. I maintain that this was not the intent of the original "over and back" (term***) rule.

2. Correct.

These situations occur frequently during games -- especially when a team is running a trapping press of some kind. I maintain that these situations were never the intent of this rule. Just because the defense causes the attacking team to be in close proximity of the division line should not cause violations until the ball and the player is in the front court.

These situations are still difficult for the commoners (spectators) to grasp. Most coaches understand this rule as do most officials.

Of course, I still think that the "last touch first touch" back court violations are the worst in this group. Requiring PLAYER CONTROL in the front court to establish front court status would eliminate these calls. ZERO percent of commoners (spectators) understand this rule and virtually none of the uncommoners (coaches) understand it.

EVERY SINGLE TIME I make this call, I (or one of my partners) must explain the call to the offending team's coach. If it is NOT called, virtually NO COACH will complain (until the rule is changed, I still will).

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Of course, I still think that the "last touch first touch" back court violations are the worst in this group. Requiring PLAYER CONTROL in the front court to establish front court status would eliminate these calls. ZERO percent of commoners (spectators) understand this rule and virtually none of the uncommoners (coaches) understand it.

EVERY SINGLE TIME I make this call, I (or one of my partners) must explain the call to the offending team's coach. If it is NOT called, virtually NO COACH will complain (until the rule is changed, I still will).

A1 is dribbling in the front court near the division line with no defenders nearby. A1 dribbles ball off of his leg and the ball rolls away (interrupted dribble). Ball rolls into backcourt where A1 picks it up. No violation as there was no player control until A1 went into the backcourt and picked it up.