Back Court Question
 

A1 has ball in front court near division line, B1 hits ball away from A1, it hits A1 Leg, goes into backcourt, hits the official in the backcourt, then returns to frontcourt (bounces in frontcourt) where A1 retrieves the ball. Is this a backcourt violation?

When A1 recovers the ball, what is its status?

See rule 4-4

I know that when the ball hits an official it is the same as hitting the floor, My confusion with this play is that the ball went to the backcourt and then bounced back to front court does it regain frontcourt status , by rule it seems to, but it to me seems like it still should be a violation. If A1 was at the division line and through ball to opposite side of court, but still at division line. and the ball bounced once in the back court, then again in the front court what would you call?

Why is this important?

The violation is for Team A being the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status and being the first to touch the ball after it has gained a backcourt status. The play would be a backcourt violation

If the ball is in the frontcourt and the player is in the frontcourt, why should it be a backcourt violation?

what he said

Yes, back court violation. Last to touch can't be first to touch. Remember that rule and you'll be good. :cool:

SECTION 9 BACKCOURT
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

IOW as JAR said, status of the ball did not matter. What matters is who is first to touch the ball after it went to backcourt.

In my first year at camp, this sitch was posed:

A1 is trapped by two opponents and without a dribble available near the DL and the SL. B1 and B2 are both in A's FC, knowing that there is little-to-no strategic advantage to "be" in A's BC.

A2 is near the DL in the centre circle. A1 puts english on the ball and then projects the pass away from B1, to hit his BC, which then spins towards A2. A2 then catches the pass after the first bounce.

We all agreed that this is a violation.

The sitch was then modified so that A2 lets the ball bounce a second time: in the Team A FC, and only then does A2 catch the ball.

Many of us, very green, were surprised to learn of the correct ruling. Which is why we go to camp.

I think I am more confused, looks like half are saying that since the ball hit back in frontcourt it now has frontcourt status and in my play it would not be a violation, the other half say it is a violation. Does anyone have definite knowledge on this type of play? We had it in a scrimmage.
The bottom line is can a ball in any manner in a teams frontcourt, be last touched by the offense, go to the backcourt, and without being touched by a player, return to the frontcourt and be first touched by the offense? This would include a spun ball, or a ball that hits an official.

Only one says it's not a violation, and that one is wrong. It's a violation. The location of the ball when it's touched isn't really relevant.

:eek: I didn't say it was a violation. I only asked a question for clarification. Clarification was given. ;)

LOL, fair enough.

Violation....the current status of the ball is irrelevant....only the order of events (touches) relative to when the ball gained BC status (even if only momentarily).

Ok, I think I am slowly understanding, but how do you think is the best way to explain the rational for this play. I have many officials that do not think this is a violation. How should I explain to them that it is?

Send them here.

I like it Snaqwells.

The offensive team can't "use" the backcourt unless the defensive team is involved by touching the ball.

I sometimes like think of the backcourt as if it were like a delayed OOB call that depends on who touches it next. If team A causes the ball be have BC status after having team control in the frontcourt, the ball is effectively dead to them unless/until the other team touches the ball. The other team has to break the chain of events to free team A from a violation. (I'm using cause here in a sense similar to causing the ball to be OOB....being the last to touch the ball before it goes OOB, but not like touching the ball while OOB).

From An Esteemed Forum Member ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control; the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in frontcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

Not quite...

the team in control must be the last to thouch the ball before it goes to tte backcourt.

This is NOT the same as being the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt.

Thanks ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control; the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in frontcourt before it goes to the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

Better ???

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Team A must be the last to touch the ball while the ball had a frontcourt status? Cause as you have it above, one might think that Team A must touch the ball while it they were in the frontcourt. We know this isn't true since a backcourt violation would occur if a Team A player threw the ball from the backcourt and it hit an official in the frontcourt and it rebounded back to the thrower.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking too much though. :confused:

No, because A need not touch the ball while it has FC status. Think of the pass from BC that hits an official in the FC and rebounds to BC. A never touched the ball while it had FC status, but it's still a violation.

Part of the rule states "last to touch the ball in the FC," but the other article clearly makes bob's play here a violation.

Bottom line, always listen to bob.

Like I said, I think I was just overthinking the wording. You're right...as usual. ;)

You've got something on your nose... :p

Not really. The red text is a bit ambiguous in that implies that team A touches the ball in the front court. Really, it is could be

last to have touched the ball while the ball was in the frontcourt

That clarifies that it is not where they touched the ball that matters.

Would the addition is Red be more accurate?

No.

A never has to touch the ball while it has FC status.

For that matter, A never has to touch the ball while it has BC status.

I don't think either one would be more accurate. I see your modificatoin as meaning exactly the same as my words.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

I'm confused. Too many colors. Red. Green. Thank God no blue. Is this statement correct all the time, or not?

"The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control; the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in frontcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt."

Now it is.

Yep, that's good.

Only Listen To bob ???
 

"I served with bob, I knew bob, bob was a friend of mine. Snaqwells, Camron Rust, you're no bob." (Lloyd Bentsen, 1988)