NCAA back court - is this a violation?
 

Can't find an approved ruling in the current casebook.

A1 brings the ball into the front court and passes to A2. A2 leaps from the back court, catches the ball, and lands with both feet in the front court. I'm looking at the rules and can see two sections in the definition that seem to contradict each other. Is there a difference between the ball being in the front/back court and the player being in the front/back court? I'm getting the suspicion that 4-3-3-a is meant to apply to 10 second back court violations?

Rule 4 - Section 3
Art. 3. A live ball is in the front court or back court of the team in control
as follows:
a. A ball that is in contact with a player or with the playing court shall be in the back court when either the ball or the player (either player when the ball is touching more than one) is touching the back court. It shall be in the front court when neither the ball nor the player is touching the back court.

Rule 4 - Section 46. Location of a Player
Art. 1. The location of a player (or non-player) is determined as being:
b. In the front court or back court.
Art. 2. When a player is in the air from a leap (except during a throw-in) or when a defensive player intercepts a ball while in the air, the player’s status with reference to these two situations shall be the same as at the time the player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

Rule 9 - Section 12. Ball in Back Court
Art. 1. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court.

Your situation is a backcourt violation under NCAA rules.

I took out all of the irrelevant and extraneous rules language.

1) Is A2 touching the back-court, by rule? Yes, according to #2. Therefore, when A2 touched the ball, the ball was in the back court.

2) Did A2 grab the ball while he was in a leap from the back court? Yes. Therefore A2 had back court status.

3) Was A2 the first to touch the ball in his backcourt after A1 passed it from his front court? Yes. Therefore, violation as per rules cited.

The part that you underlined in #1 was irrelevant and I removed it. That's where you were getting confused. In the case being discussed, A2 was touching the back court by rules definition.

Make a little more sense now?

I understand it now. I'm just wondering why this situation isn't in the casebook.

Maybe it's so obvious that it needn't be in there? Not everything can be in the case book.

Another NCAA backcourt situation
 

Please help with another backcourt situation. NCAA rules. I was called for this 10+ years ago, and have accepted the turnover as a permanent part of my statistical record:)

I'll call myself A1. A1 dribbles along the left sideline fairly quickly and is just about to cross the division line when B1 and B2 come to trap. A1 anticipates the trap and quickly jump stops so that A1's left foot is in the front court and A1's right foot is in the back court. A1 then jumps to pass (a fundamental no-no), and his momentum carries A1 and the ball completely past the plain of the division line. But before returning to the court, A1 passes back to A2 who is in the back court. Whistle. Backcourt vioation. Life moves on.

My take. - Under Rule 4.3.3.a (quoted above), A1 and the ball had backcourt status when A1 last touched the court. Under Rule 4.46.2, A1 and the ball retained backcourt status while airborne, despite crossing the plane of the division line. Therefore, the ball never obtained front court status and could be legally touched by A2 in the backcourt.

Other than remembering this situation from 10+ years ago, where am I going wrong?

As described, the play would not be a backcourt violation. The only way I could see that being called was if the official determined the player jumped off the foot in the frontcourt, and in that situation, it'd have to be clear cut.