Back Court vs. Front Court.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by tref

So, that being said... A1 in the f/c passes to A3 also in the f/c, B3 deflects the ball TOWARD the b/c. Before the ball touches the floor in the b/c A3 recovers in the b/c.
Ruling?

Backcourt violation on A3 according to the Fed.

Use the same scenario with the ball going OOB. If A3 is standing OOB and touches the ball befoe it hits OOB, A3 has committed the violation.

[tref]

Oh I concur with ya!
I just remember the board being split 50/50 on the this matter a while back.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by tref

Oh I concur with ya!
I just remember the board being split 50/50 on the this matter a while back.

Can you link to that thread? I can't imagine it approached 98 vs 2, and that is even including the one-and-only Old School

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Can you link to that thread? I can't imagine it approached 98 vs 2, and that is even including the one-and-only Old School

2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.

By unilateral decree...

Situation 10 still bothers me.

Any thoughts on this play?

New interps Sitch # 10

How's that for a start?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt.

For some reason, every time this situation happens in one of my games, I always seem to blink my eyes and miss the call. When the coach complains about the no call and mentions Situation 10, I explain that I had something in my eye and missed it.

[Nevadaref]

That silly interp directly contradicts the ruling in part (a) of this NFHS Case Book play. Note that NO VIOLATION occurs for the action in part (a). That's neither a backcourt violation or a 10-second count violation.


9.8 SITUATION D: Team A is in control in its backcourt for seven seconds. A1
throws the ball toward A2 in the frontcourt. B1 jumps from Team A’s: (a) frontcourt;
or (b) backcourt and while in the air bats the ball back to A1 in A’s backcourt.
Does this give Team A 10 more seconds to get the ball to the frontcourt?
RULING: Yes, in (a), a new count starts because B1 had frontcourt location when
touching the ball thus giving the ball frontcourt location. In (b), the original count
continues as Team A is still in control and the ball has not gone to frontcourt. (4-
4-2; 4-3; 4-35-1)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That silly interp directly contradicts the ruling in part (a) of this NFHS Case Book play. Note that NO VIOLATION occurs for the action in part (a). That's neither a backcourt violation or a 10-second count violation. 9.8 SITUATION D: Team A is in control in its backcourt for seven seconds. A1 throws the ball toward A2 in the frontcourt. B1 jumps from Team A’s: (a) frontcourt; or (b) backcourt and while in the air bats the ball back to A1 in A’s backcourt. Does this give Team A 10 more seconds to get the ball to the frontcourt? RULING: Yes, in (a), a new count starts because B1 had frontcourt location when touching the ball thus giving the ball frontcourt location. In (b), the original count continues as Team A is still in control and the ball has not gone to frontcourt. (4-4-2; 4-3; 4-35-1)

If A1 caught the ball in the air before it hit the floor, then you certainly have an similar situation. Nice catch Nevadaref.

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That silly interp directly contradicts the ruling in part (a) of this NFHS Case Book play. Note that NO VIOLATION occurs for the action in part (a). That's neither a backcourt violation or a 10-second count violation.


9.8 SITUATION D: Team A is in control in its backcourt for seven seconds. A1
throws the ball toward A2 in the frontcourt. B1 jumps from Team A’s: (a) frontcourt;
or (b) backcourt and while in the air bats the ball back to A1 in A’s backcourt.
Does this give Team A 10 more seconds to get the ball to the frontcourt?
RULING: Yes, in (a), a new count starts because B1 had frontcourt location when
touching the ball thus giving the ball frontcourt location. In (b), the original count
continues as Team A is still in control and the ball has not gone to frontcourt. (4-
4-2; 4-3; 4-35-1)

There is no contradiction whatsoever. The case play you cite doesn't mention whether the ball first touched the ground in the back court or not. Now if the case play had said that A1 caught the ball before it hit the ground then you would have something. However, the case play leaves out that very important point.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Use the same scenario with the ball going OOB. If A3 is standing OOB and touches the ball befoe it hits OOB, A3 has committed the violation.

It didn't always use to be that way on a throwin.