Backcourt?
 

I say yes.

Here's the situation - top of the key, A1 passes the ball to A2, B1 hits the ball in the air and the ball crosses the BC line still in the air. A1 runs back and gets the ball from the air, never touched the floor. Is it Back Court?

Can you see the play? Can you give me the case book play? I am getting ready to move and have packed away my basketball books.

Thanks,

Where was A when he grabbed the ball?

A1 was in her back court.

So think through the 4 requirements for this violation:

A has TC.
Ball has FC status.
A is last to touch the ball before the ball obtains BC status.
A is first to touch the ball with the ball after having BC status.

According to the recent interpretation, this would be a backcourt violation. Most everyone on the forum though disagrees with the interpret as it seems to be in direct conflict with the written rule.

Right? The ball had front court status, not having touched the floor or a player in BC until A1 touched it.

Case book?

2007-2008 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

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)

This is the interpretation that would make your play a backcourt violation according to the NFHS interpretation. If you search, you'll find a long thread about the merits of this silly (IMO), interpretation. There was a strong majority if I remember correctly that were against this interpretation as it is conflicting with the written rule.

These old interps are nice to have around. Even the silly ones. :cool:

The root of the forum disagreement with the interp is that the last to touch and first to touch happen at the sametime. The ball cannot have both FC and BC status at the same time.

That and the rationale for the ruling isn't even correct. It's not a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status. If it was, it would be a violation the instant the ball gains backcourt status.

And it gained BC status when A1 touched it,correct?

Sure, it gained backcourt status when A1 touched it...and? :confused:

Making sure.

Thanks all!

Almost...

For it to be a violation, the rule requires that team A be the last to touch BEFORE and first to touch AFTER the ball gains BC status. One touch can't, in any way, shape, or form, happen both before and after a specific event (gaining BC status).

It seems that the rationale is similar to a player OOB being the player who causes the ball to be OOB, when he/she touches or is touched by a live ball.