Another Backcourt Question, in bounds play!
 

A1 throwing ball in, A2 jumps from front court in the air towards backcourt, but before landing(which would not be a violation), passes the ball to A3, who is in back court already!

Why is this a violation, when A2 could of went ahead and landed and been fine? Looked in 9-9-3 but doesn't mention the pass to A3, maybe in the case book, don't have it with me.

The throw-in exception applies only to the first player to touch. When A2 caught the ball the throw-in ended, so now all normal rules apply with regard to the backcourt violation.

Just thought no team control on throw in, backcourt or front court had not been established, so was just trying to figure out why it would be a violation and couldn't find anything to support it.

In order for A2 to pass the ball, he had to catch it first. At the point, player/team control was established.

+1 :d

9.9.1E is this exact play.

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.

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

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

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.