Back Court violation on a throw in

[Jeff the Ref]

A1 inbounds to A2 who is airborne when he controls ball.

Play 1: A2 returns to floor with one foot in front court followed by the other foot in the back court.

Play 2: A2 returns to floor with one foot in front court simultaneously with the other foot in the back court.

[Edited by Jeff the Ref on Dec 9th, 2002 at 11:15 AM]

[mick]

Originally posted by Jeff the Ref
A1 inbounds to A2 who is airborne when he controls ball.

Play 1: A1 returns to floor with one foot in front court followed by the other foot in the back court.

Play 2: A1 returns to floor with one foot in front court simultaneously with the other foot in the back court.

...What difference does it make where the thrower-in goes?

[Jeff the Ref]

sorry...I mean A2...my bad!

[kmref]

There is no back-court violation on a thow-in. Front court status is based on all 3 pts over the division line. Because there is no beginning status of the player that is considered...
1st ex: only 2 pts
in front court
2nd ex: only 2 pts

[mick]

Originally posted by kmref
There is no back-court violation on a thow-in. Front court status is based on all 3 pts over the division line. Because there is no beginning status of the player that is considered...
1st ex: only 2 pts
in front court
2nd ex: only 2 pts

kmref,
3-point requirement applies only to dribbling situations.
A2 was not dribbling was she?
mick

[Jeff the Ref]

Originally posted by kmref
Front court status is based on all 3 pts over the division line.

On a dribble.

[Jeff the Ref]

No...on a throw in situation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by kmref
There is no back-court violation on a thow-in. Front court status is based on all 3 pts over the division line. Because there is no beginning status of the player that is considered...
1st ex: only 2 pts
in front court
2nd ex: only 2 pts

The 3 points "rule" only applies when a player is dribbling the ball. It has nothing to do with this situation.

This is not a BC violation because it meets the requirements for 9-9 Exception 1. Catching the ball after leaving the floor in the FC, does establish team control and FC status. But Exception 1 allows the player to land in the BC, with either or both feet.

EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he/she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The 3 points "rule" only applies when a player is dribbling the ball. It has nothing to do with this situation.

This is not a BC violation because it meets the requirements for 9-9 Exception 1. Catching the ball after leaving the floor in the FC, does establish team control and FC status. But Exception 1 allows the player to land in the BC, with either or both feet.

EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he/she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

What if A2 lands on his gluteus maximus and fails to establish a pivot foot?

[Jeff the Ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The 3 points "rule" only applies when a player is dribbling the ball. It has nothing to do with this situation.

This is not a BC violation because it meets the requirements for 9-9 Exception 1. Catching the ball after leaving the floor in the FC, does establish team control and FC status. But Exception 1 allows the player to land in the BC, with either or both feet.

EXCEPTION 1: It is not a violation when after a jump ball or a throw-in, a player is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he/she then returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

Yes..I agree, but does not A2 in example 1 return to the floor in the front court first?

[Ref in PA]

Rule 9-9-2 applies to your situation, but has two exceptions. The first exception has to do with a jump ball and a throw-in. The second is a defensive steal. These exceptions basically say it doesn't matter where the player was when he jumped - ball possession was secured in the air and team possesion location is established when the player returns to the ground. There is a note for these exceptions and quoted here:

"NOTE: The exceptions allow a player to make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in frontcourt or backcourt."

So, if you think the landing was normal - no violation; abnormal - violation. Isn't this easy?

[mick]

Originally posted by Jeff the Ref

Yes..I agree, but does not A2 in example 1 return to the floor in the front court first?

Jeff,
If ball is secured in the air, then we allow the player to have a "natural landing".
mick

[devdog69]

Originally posted by Jeff the Ref

Yes..I agree, but does not A2 in example 1 return to the floor in the front court first?

I see where you are going... when the first foot came down we had fc status, then the foot down in b/c...it would have to be a very significant delay between the feet coming down for me to "see it that way", i.e., if we had the one legged swan standing on one foot in the f/c, then finally putting the other foot down in the b/c, i might call that.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick
What if A2 lands on his gluteus maximus and fails to establish a pivot foot?

According to folks in nevada, it would depend on what he did with his feet after the landed.

I don't think it would matter. A2 will be quickly asking for a TO so that be may address his sore arse.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by devdog69
I see where you are going... when the first foot came down we had fc status, then the foot down in b/c...it would have to be a very significant delay between the feet coming down for me to "see it that way", i.e., if we had the one legged swan standing on one foot in the f/c, then finally putting the other foot down in the b/c, i might call that.

Wow! You got one right!