Yet another backcourt sitch

[Danvrapp]

A1 is being trapped in the frontcourt right inside the division line. In attempt to pass to a teammate, A1 spins the ball such that it hits in the backcourt, spins forward, and is caught by A2 who has two feet in the front court. A2 never puts foot into the backcourt. Didn't happen last night, but it almost did. It got me thinkin'.

I would think no violation, because, even thought the ball has backcourt status, it isn't being controlled by a player, but by a team. Does is matter? Hmmm...

[Stan]

Originally posted by Danvrapp


I would think no violation, because, even thought the ball has backcourt status, it isn't being controlled by a player, but by a team. Does is matter? Hmmm...

Is there such a thing as back court status for the ball?

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by Stan
Is there such a thing as back court status for the ball?

Sure. Read the definition for "Ball, location at disposal."

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Danvrapp

I would think no violation, because, even thought the ball has backcourt status, it isn't being controlled by a player, but by a team. Does is matter? Hmmm...

Yes, it does.

In order to have a backcourt violation, after establishing team control in the frontcourt, the ball must last be touched in the frontcourt by A and first touched in the backcourt by A. If the ball is never touched in the backcourt, there can be no BC violation.

(Of course, the ball is still in A's control, so there can be a ten-second backcourt violation.)

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Danvrapp

Sure. Read the definition for "Ball, location at disposal."

however if one reads 4-4-1 closely the ball actually needs to be touching the floor or a player in the back court to have status in the backcourt.

The real question is when A1 passes the ball and it touches in the backcourt, does this give it back court status???

However when A2 recieves the pass they are in the frontcourt the same location the pass started from. Since a violation for this can not be blown until touched by a player I have no violation as both are in the front court.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

You are way too quick for me mark...

[LarryS]

Dan,
I'm with you, I think this would not be a violation. Two of the elements of the backcourt violation "rules" is Team A is last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and Team A is first to touch it in the backcourt. Since nobody touched it in the backcourt, no violation.

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
however if one reads 4-4-1 closely the ball actually needs to be touching the floor or a player in the back court to have status in the backcourt.

The real question is when A1 passes the ball and it touches in the backcourt, does this give it back court status???

Is this a trick question? When the ball touches the backcourt (when the pass bounces off the floor), it's touching the floor, thereby giving it backcourt status.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Danvrapp

Is this a trick question? When the ball touches the backcourt (when the pass bounces off the floor), it's touching the floor, thereby giving it backcourt status.

It sounds like it

But the meaning is IMO that if the ball were to be at rest in backcourt and then touched by a player it has back court status. They differentiate this as a passed ball into the back court to a player in the backcourt will have backcourt status as soon as it touches that player even though it has never touched the floor in the backcourt

[Hawks Coach]

Word for word from the backcourt rule:

A player of the team in control shall not:
ART. 1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it has been 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.

I think it is a violation. The rule does not say the ball has to be in the backcourt at the time of the touch. The team had control in front court, was last to touch before it went backcourt, and first to touch after it went backcourt. Seems to meet the criteria, even though the ball is not currently backourt.

If this is not a violation, then a player can spin a pass through the backcourt around a trap and get it to a frontcourt player. That does not make intuitive sense to me, and I do not think the rules support that interpretation.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Word for word from the backcourt rule:

A player of the team in control shall not:
ART. 1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it has been 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.

I think it is a violation. The rule does not say the ball has to be in the backcourt at the time of the touch. The team had control in front court, was last to touch before it went backcourt, and first to touch after it went backcourt. Seems to meet the criteria, even though the ball is not currently backourt.

If this is not a violation, then a player can spin a pass through the backcourt around a trap and get it to a frontcourt player. That does not make intuitive sense to me, and I do not think the rules support that interpretation.

Hawks:

After reading 9-9-1 closely you have a very good point. Ball in player posession is frontcourt pass touches backcourt and teammate is first to touch ball w/ backcourt status. Although that teammate is in the frontcourt the ball still has BC status due to it touching the court there. This in my mind is now a violation.
(Next I have to try to sell it to a coach, unless it is one who is as rules knowledgable as yourself

I think there will be more debate on this...

[Stan]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Word for word from the backcourt rule:

A player of the team in control shall not:
ART. 1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it has been 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.

Are we now back to whether a ball can have its own back court status?

[Hawks Coach]

Note I never said ball retained backcourt status after it returned to the frontcourt, just that Team A had possession front court, ball went backcourt and then is touched first by team A. Ball does not retain a magical backcourt status when it is physically in the frontcourt. It can have frontcourt status, but if it has yet to be touched after going backcourt, the rule stating first to touch after it went backcourt still applies.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 8th, 2003 at 10:57 AM]

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Stan

Are we now back to whether a ball can have its own back court status?

The ball definitely had backcourt status when it hit in the backcourt. If the ball bounces backcourt and a front court player from the team in possession reaches over to grab it, that is a violation. The player does not ever have to be in the backcourt, just the ball. And I don't believe the ball has to remain there, it merely needs to have gone there and not have been touched since.

[Int]

Remember to consider the spirit & intent of the rule. The intent of the backcourt rule is to ensure that once a team has control in their frontcourt, their play is restricted to the frontcourt. By rule, the ball has gone FC-BC-FC, take that along with the intent of the rule and it's any easy call... violation.