Backcourt Violation Help
 

Do you guys and girls look at where the player is or where the ball is on a Backcourt Violation. In other words do you always see if the ball has Frontcourt status vs. Backcourt status rather than where the player touches the ball.

Had a bang/bang play on a throw in from the side line near midcourt. Team A is in their front court ball is passed to A1 near the mid court line where she touches it (gains possession) and then she steps over the line into the backcourt. I called a Violation.

I saw that the ball had Frontcourt status on the possession and then she preceded into the backcourt.

Is this the right thing to look at??

Thanks!

This is very difficult to visualize. Wanna try again??

haha :) sure. I was just trying to say where she gained possession. I don't know why I added all the other.

Exception Applies?
 

If the sitch is as I think it is, that is, on a throw-in, 9-9-3 may apply:
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.
Since there is no team control during a throw-in, and team control had not yet been established in the frontcourt, his/her control of the ball in the backcourt would not have been a violation due to this exception.
Is this applicable to the situation you are trying to describe?
(I'm not sure this answered the question)

Touching the ball does not confer control. If the ball was just touched in the f/c and not controlled til it was retrieved in the b/c, I've got nothing. Start 10 sec count and play on...

Right. The question I have is the applying the principles. Do you all say "Okay ball had Frontcourt status" or do you look at the position of the player to determine if it's Backcourt or not. I think its hard to explain. All I can say is do you look at the ball (determine status) or the position of the player??

Thanks

I'm not sure what you're asking. You need to know both. In your situation, the status of the ball is determined by the status of the player who is holding or dribbling it.

The way I read your situation, it's a violation. If she gained control with FC status and then stepped into the BC, it's a clear violation. Once she gains control, the throwin is over. Unless she gained control in the air and landed in the BC, in which case there is a clear exception that applies.

Perhaps a good way to explain it is, on a throw-in, you need to know what status the ball has when possession is established. If you know that, then you can rule on everything that happens after that. First, does the exception apply (airborne when ball is first touched)? If so, no violation. If it doesn't, then answer the following questions?

1. Team Control by A? (If so, move to the next)
2. Ball has frontcourt status? (If so, move to the next)
3. A was last to touch in frontcourt? (If so, move to next)
4. A was first to touch after the ball has obtained backcourt status?

If you answer yes to all, you have a violation. If you answer no to any, you don't.

These may happen quickly, but process: once you've identified control, then you just have to watch status. If it goes frontcourt to backcourt, then you have to determine who touched it last in frontcourt and who touched it first after it went backcourt.

Long explanation for: you have to watch the ball and the player.

Not correct, and it leaves out too many possibilities. The correct decision procedure is: "Yes to all: violation; otherwise not."

Right, of course, and what I meant to type. Will edit to correct. Thanks.

Say a player gains control with one foot in the front court and one foot on the line or in the backcourt? No Violation? Why?

First, we need to know more.
1. Is this player establishing team control at this time? If so, no violation as you have a player establishing team control with BC status.
If TC had already been established, then it matters what happened before, and what status the ball has had prior.

Not quite right.
If the player is airborne when catching the ball, it doesn't matter which foot lands first. The player is entitled to a "normal landing." Even if the FC foot lands first, if a normal landing puts one foot in the back court (and on the line counts), this player has BC status with the pivot foot in the FC.

If this player then starts dribbling while BC status is in effect, the three points rule comes into play and the player will not gain FC status until the ball and both feet hit the FC in immediate succession.

As an aside: if the player gets two feet in the FC, but is dribbling in the BC, he will gain FC status by picking up the dribble.

Work through it. Answer the four questions above.

If he gained possession with both (one in the frontcourt and one in the backcourt) then "Nothing". However, if he pivots the backcourt foot to the front court and then back to the backcourt then "Violation"

If he gained possession with that one foot in the frontcourt followed by the other in the backcourt then "Violation"

Right?

Right, as long as he gained possession with that foot on the floor. If he gained it airborne and landed with that foot down first, the other foot can come down in the BC and he now has BC status legally. (assuming, of course, he is catching a throw-in pass and his catch is the first touch of that throw in pass).

You were right. However, this statement can actually be a bit more complex.

Situation: A1 catches ball with left foot in frontcourt and right foot in backcourt. While holding the ball, he lifts his right foot, then returns it to the ground in the backcourt without it ever touching the frontcourt.

What do you have now?

Violation. Once the right foot is lifted he now has front court status. When it returns its a violation?

Unless you argue that the pivot foot was in the frontcourt and remained there when the right foot was lifted. Therefore you had frontcourt status even if the right foot came back down. (that would be my argument as a coach)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the pivot foot. The pivot foot is irrelevant when it comes to player location.

And, more important, so will the ball. :)

How about this one, newbies:

A has the ball in the FC, and it gets away from A1 at the top of the key. The ball is bouncing toward the BC. As A1 reaches the division line, he reaches for the ball, bounces it once right on the division line, then grabs it with both hands. A1 never touches the BC. Violation? Explain.

I would say "equally" important, but that's just me. :)

Are you sure your position is that, with respect to correctly ruling on a BC violation, the location of the player is just as important as that of the ball?

Yes, with regard to the very specific play in question. If you are going to deviate from that play and offer other potential violations, then there could be times when ball location (and previous location) is all that matters.

That is what I have. Line is part of it so Backcourt

Okay, how about this one.
A1 standing in the FC, holding the ball near the division line (table side) with pressure. He looks away from the table and sees teammate A2 standing in the FC near the division line so he reaches over the line and throws a bounces pass to A2. It bounces twice before A2 catches it, standing in the FC. The first bounce is in the BC, and the second bounce is in the FC.

What's the call?

Nothing if its caught on the 2nd bounce. The ball had Frontcourt status.

If caught on the first, the ball had Backcourt status. Violation

Let's work through this one. I'll answer the first three:

Team control? Yes
Ball had frontcourt status? Yes
A was last to touch before the ball had backcourt status? Yes.

Final question: Was A the first to touch the ball after it had backcourt status?

Read 9-9-1, then see if you still think it's legal.

Sorry I don't have my books with me. So even though it was caught on the 2nd bounce which hit in the frontcourt it is still a Violation?

You'll note, it doesn't say "first to touch the ball in the backcourt."

Key phrase: (paraphrasing) Cannot be first to touch ball after it gains backcourt status after having team control in frontcourt.

Still a little confused but okay. I sort of get it

Read these carefully:

A must be the last to touch while the ball has frontcourt status; and

A must be the first to touch after the ball has backcourt status.

You have to read what it says has to happen, and also realize what it doesn't say. A must be the first to touch after the ball has backcourt status, but it doesn't say the ball must still have backcourt status when it's touched.