If we can stretch this thread to 4 or 5 pages, it may provoke an editorial revision in the new books when they come out. In the meantime, there is no definitive answer to the question.

But every first year philosophy student knows that you make something definitive by saying it is not definite.
(Just doing my part to expand the thread)

team control
 

I could use some clarification on the team control part of this. Does it end when the ball is deflected by B1 and both B1 and A1 are going after the ball with no player control?

There's four backcourt violation criteria, not three.

1) there must be team control
2) the team in control must be last to touch the ball in frontcourt
3) the ball must achieve backcourt status
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

Ya' know - now that I think about it - there's actually a redundancy to criteria 3 and 4. If number 4 says the touch must come after the ball has been in the backcourt, there's really no need for number 3, because number 4 requires the ball to have achieved backcourt status. What do you guys think?

No, a deflection does not end team control.

MP: I've also heard the four criteria, but you're right about the redundancy, so three makes more sense. I always go by three: "Team control, last to touch, first to touch."

I think that your #3 is wrong. The ball must achieve frontcourt status (first).

Then (2) should read: The team in control must be the last to touch before the ball enters the backcourt.

The first touch need not be in the frontcourt and the second touch need not be in the backcourt.

Touching by anyone does not end team control after that team control was obtained. That includes simultaneous touching by the offense and defense. That was my point....and I'm missing your point. It is....? :confused:

Yup, but if by some wierd happenstance this play ever did come up before we got some direction, you'd still have to make a call...and then no doubt have to justify the call that you made. I can half-azzed justify a violation using current rule language. I can't come up with anything though rules-wise that would justify not calling a violation.

It's a CYA call. :D

I was trying to point out to him that a deflection by anyone doesn't end team control. It appears you "got it". He wanted to know if team control ended on the deflection.

If the ball had not achieved frontcourt status, we wouldn't even be discussing a backcourt violation. That's like saying "the game must have begun" should be required as one of the criteria.

OK - that's a slight exaggeration. :)

There in lies the great debate.

Mark, his point was that no one from team A need ever touch the ball in the FC for a violation to occur.
IOW the statement that team A must be the last to touch the ball in the FC is not correct.

That's because there are two different articles which set forth criteria for a backcourt violation. For an article 1 violation, the rules do specify that a player of Team A must touch the ball in the frontcourt, however, that is not the case for article 2.

Thus in order to make the four points system as general as possible and have it cover violations for either article, it is necessary to list four separate criteria as BktBallRef does.

I must admit in all my years, going back to the Naismith days, I've never had the situation in which A1, in his backcourt, throws the ball with such a spin that it hits in frontcourt then comes back into the backcourt where it is touched by a member of team A having had no one touch it in the frontcourt. However, this would be a violation.

Although rarely, I have had situations in which A1, standing in backcourt near the division line, makes a bounce pass to A2 (who is also standing in backcourt near the other end of the division line) and the ball bounces in frontcourt during the pass and then A2 grabs it.

The difference between your two situations is exactly why the wording of 9-9-2 was changed for the 2008-09 season.
Prior to then your second play was not a violation by the strict text of the rule.

I happen to believe that it was due to a post which I wrote on this forum, but that may be an overly optimistic opinion.