Over & Back?

[Seddy]

Ball is being inbounded. Offensive player jumps from front court, catches ball, and lands completely in back court. Over & Back?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Seddy

Ball is being inbounded. Offensive player jumps from front court, catches ball, and lands completely in back court. Over & Back?

No. This is one of the "exceptions" to the BC rule.

[Johnny Ringo]

No team control on an inbound.

[representing]

Originally Posted by Seddy

Ball is being inbounded. Offensive player jumps from front court, catches ball, and lands completely in back court. Over & Back?

Third time this type of situation was brought up this week haha. No, this is not a violation. No team control during throw-ins, jump balls. There is also no backcourt if the opposing team has team control.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

No team control on an inbound.

Team control is not the reason this isn't a violation.

In this scenario, there is team control with frontcourt status when the ball is caught. But by exception it is allowed.

Also, to the OP, it doesn't matter if the player lands totally in the backcourt, or even if he comes down with a foot in the frontcourt then a foot in the backcourt. He is allowed to land normally.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

No team control on an inbound.

True, but not relevant.

There is team control, and the ball is in the frontcourt as soon as the offensive player catches the ball. When the player lands in the backcourt, all the conditions for a BC violation have been met. Without the specific wording allowing this play (and the defensive player, and the jump ball), this would be a violation.

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by Seddy

Ball is being inbounded. Offensive player jumps from front court, catches ball, and lands completely in back court. Over & Back?

No, special provision for BC allows this on a throwin.

[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").