Another Backcourt Question, in bounds play!

[jritchie]

So because he caught it, and he left from frontcourt, frontcourt was established? then he threw it into backcourt for a violation? I understand it, but don't know why they would make it that way, when they are going to allow A2 to come down in backcourt anyways, just don't seem right to have it both ways on a throw in!

So you can come from front court and land in backcourt and be legal, but if you pass to back court in air it's illegal, that just doesn't seem right to me. They changed one to make it legal years back, they should of changed the other one too, in my opinion.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jritchie

So because he caught it, and he left from frontcourt, frontcourt was established? then he threw it into backcourt for a violation? I understand it, but don't know why they would make it that way, when they are going to allow A2 to come down in backcourt anyways, just don't seem right to have it both ways on a throw in!

So you can come from front court and land in backcourt and be legal, but if you pass to back court in air it's illegal, that just doesn't seem right to me. They changed one to make it legal years back, they should of changed the other one too, in my opinion.

The exceptions only apply to the first person to touch the ball. That's (generally) because the offense (in this case) can't directly control from where the ball is inbounded. Once the offense catches the ball, they have options as to what to do, so they are responsible for choosing the incorrect option.

The same ruling would apply if the defense intercepted a pass and threw the ball to another defender in the BC.

[jritchie]

Thanks, totally understand it, just don't agree with it!

[Adam]

I'm not aware this was changed recently; only clarified. AFAIK, it's always been this way.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by jritchie

Thanks, totally understand it, just don't agree with it!

jritchie,
You will find that it is easiest to memorize the backcourt rules for a throw-in (the exceptions), the normal backcourt rules, and the last touch-first touch provisions and not try to rationalize them as the logic used to determine them is not always, well, logical.

These rules are similar to the rule that allows a player to pick up a dribble, land on one foot (generally, this foot would be the pivot foot) and "alight" on two (causing the pivot foot to return to the floor which generally results in a travel). But, alas, this action is legal. Don't try to reason out the play, just remember that it is legal (or in the case of some of the back court plays, illegal).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

jritchie,
You will find that it is easiest to memorize the backcourt rules for a throw-in (the exceptions), the normal backcourt rules, and the last touch-first touch provisions and not try to rationalize them as the logic used to determine them is not always, well, logical.

These rules are similar to the rule that allows a player to pick up a dribble, land on one foot (generally, this foot would be the pivot foot) and "alight" on two (causing the pivot foot to return to the floor which generally results in a travel). But, alas, this action is legal. Don't try to reason out the play, just remember that it is legal (or in the case of some of the back court plays, illegal).

This is where your "reasoning" is broken. Landing on one foot is not when the pivot foot is established. It is when the 2nd foot touches. So, if they jump off of the one foot, there is no pivot foot to return to the floor....thus on travel for jumping.

It is logical IF you know the definition of the pivot foot.