Back Court Violation ?

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by trsandy

here's the worst part of the ruling .... The backcourt referee was standing out of bounds straddling the mid court line and was watching the exchange between A1 and A2. He had perfect vantage point. He did NOT call the infraction. The other referee (who was working his way toward the baseline) made the call !!!!

Now THAT's ugly. (Along with the "two feet" explanation.)

But I'm still not totally clear from your description. It seems your 1) and 2) contradict each other a bit in your next-to-last post.

You say A2 is "airborne" when getting the ball (to me, that means no foot at all on the ground). If that's the case, he still has backcourt status and you have a violation -- doesn't matter where he lands AFTER he receives the ball. If however, he doesn't touch the ball until he has something landed in FC and nothing still touching BC, he's OK.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Amesman

But I'm still not totally clear from your description. It seems your 1) and 2) contradict each other a bit in your next-to-last post.

You say A2 is "airborne" when getting the ball (to me, that means no foot at all on the ground). If that's the case, he still has backcourt status and you have a violation -- doesn't matter where he lands AFTER he receives the ball. If however, he doesn't touch the ball until he has something landed in FC and nothing still touching BC, he's OK.

I believe what he is attempting to share is that A2 was airborne (having backcourt status) when A1 passed the ball. However, by the time A2 received the pass, he had come down on one foot in the frontcourt.

No contradiction, just a confusing use of the term 'airborne' as we typically use it.