Situation in a boys HSV game this week:

A1 is OOB in A's backcourt. A1 passes to A2. A2 catches ball with one foot on the floor in frontcourt. His momentum carries forward toward backcourt and his second foot comes down in backcourt. I had a no call based on 9.9.2.1 but the coach disputed the no call. I explained that 9.9.2.1 allows for this one exception on an inbounds pass. However, after thinking about it and re-reading a couple of additional rules, I am not sure of the call (or no call, as the case may be).

Key points:

9.9.2.1 states that it is not a violation after a throw-in, when a player (who jumps from frontcourt)is the first to secure control of the ball while both feet are off the floor and he/she returns to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

The key in this definition is that both feet are off the floor when ball control is secured. In this situation, the player had one foot off of the floor and one on the floor in frontcourt. The second foot came down in the backcourt. It now looks like to me that I used this rule inappropriately since both feet were not off of the floor when ball control was secured.

4.4.2 states that a ball which is in contact with a player is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

So, since the player had one foot in frontcourt when the ball was secured (the nonpivot, back foot was still in the air when the ball was caught), A1 had frontcourt position. Thus, when his second foot came down, it was an over and back violation. Sounds like I missed it...anyone else had to make this call lately? My guess is you had to explain to one coach or the other. I would love to hear your explanation so I can use it!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chayce
[B]Situation in a boys HSV game this week:

A1 is OOB in A's backcourt. A1 passes to A2. A2 catches ball with one foot on the floor in frontcourt. His momentum carries forward toward backcourt and his second foot comes down in backcourt. I had a no call based on 9.9.2.1 but the coach disputed the no call. I explained that 9.9.2.1 allows for this one exception on an inbounds pass. However, after thinking about it and re-reading a couple of additional rules, I am not sure of the call (or no call, as the case may be).



A2 has position est. in FC (foot on floor). He/she (see prev thread) secures pos (control) in this manner then touches in BC. Violation. You did all your homework w/ the refences you posted!!:D

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Jan 6th, 2003 at 02:19 PM]

I'm feeling like control should inlcude more than just being able to put two hands on the ball.... like two feet on the floor.

I would have to see the play to judge it. Did the situation occur just because of laziness or was there good defense that caused the catch to be made in this manner? Was the catcher trying to stay out of the backcourt... prevent a violation?

Definately true Tony. A lot of situations we describe on this board can be tough to determine unless we were actually there. From what the orr. post said it does kind of sound like there may not have been control if the player was "falling" momentum??? back toward the division line.

I agree with the "two feet need to get down before there is control" concept when it is a high speed play. If they question it, tell them it's an NFL rule. If they really complain, tell them they have to make a football related move as well :)

But this simply isn't the rule. Control is defined to be holding or dribbling a ball in bounds, so you establish control when you are holding the ball no matter whether 0, 1, or 2 feet are touching the floor. Your frontcourt/backcourt status at that moment determines the ball's status. The situation described is a clear violation and should be called, otherwise team B is being unfairly penalized.

If it is fast enough, the A wasn't holding it until the second foot was down ;)

Have to see it to call it.

I think you missed it chayce.

If the player is not airborne, the exception does not exist. If your player had one foot on the floor in the FC when he caught the ball, he violated when he stepped in the BC.

In all honesty, I was not sure at the time whether or not the first foot had come down in frontcourt before A1 caught the ball. Another official waiting for the next tournament game said he thought the foot was down first. In any event, it was a bangbang play and I went with my initial reaction that the spirit of the exception rule protects a player who is coming back to the inbounds pass. It was one of those few plays that I probably would have felt badly about if I had called it either way.

What is "the spirit of the exception rule," and how do you have time to think about that (whatever it is) if you don't have time to even decide if the player's foot was planted on the floor, or not? Or, if it was before of after the catch, or if it was in the FC or the BC? If you miss a call (which we all do), then fine, admit it, and realize how to get it right the next time. But saying you passed on the call because of "the spirit of the exception rule" is a cop out. Actually, it's "the reality of the written rules" that protects ALL players, and we are the ones dedicated to upholding those rules. It doesn't matter what any of us think rulings should be, or could be, but only what they ARE, per the code we work under. I think I have written this same sentiment before.....

Thanks for the comments Marty. You'll notice in my first post that I already admitted to missing the call and certainly have no problem admitting the mistake. I can sit down after nearly any game and think of a call or two that I might change with the precious commmodity of time to reflect.

The "spirit of the exception rule" is nothing more than the rule itself. It provides an exception to the normal over and back violation which occurs when a player jumps from front court, catches a pass, and lands in backcourt since a player is always in the location where his feet last left the floor. The "spirit" is that we are making an exception.

I have thought about other similar scenarios to try and prepare for their occurrence during a game. Here is one for you:

A1 in bounds to A2 who has both feet in the air. A2's first foot lands one inch inside the division line in front court just before the second foot lands one inch from the division line in backcourt. Your call?

As long as both feet are in the air when the catch is made, either foot can come down on either side of the line, in either order, no violation. This is covered by the exception you refer to earlier.

When did he catch the ball, while he was airborne or after the first foot landed in the FC?

If he caught the ball while airborne, hten it's not the same play. In this play, the player is airborne when he catches the ball. It doesn't matter where he lands, the one inch is of no consequence. It's not going to be BC.

The rule is, if ge's airborne when he catches the ball, there's an exception. If he's not airborne, there is no exception. You HAVE to make the decision one way or another, based on the rule, not based on "Well, I'm not gonna call it because it's almost the same situation."

Catches ball with one foot in front court....goes into backcourt.

Seems like a no-brainer to me...violation...but as you've all said, I wasn't there.

Here's a classic...Team A going up court, ball goes to A1 in frontcourt, passes to A2 who jumps from backcourt, catches ball, and lands in frontcourt...violation? I know this one (had it tonight!), just want to see your responses!

You are missing a point
 

Perhaps the most important part of the exceptions of 9-9-2 is the NOTE at the end.

"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. Only the player gaining possession is covered by the exceptions."

What you have to judge, as the referee, is if the landing is "normal". If so, no violation. You say it was a bang-bang play so it sounds to me as if the landing was normal. If you feel the landing was not normal, then you missed the call. As said previously, we didn't see it. Now, to put this issue at rest, was it a normal landing?

This is a NO-brainer...
 

...violation! A2 still has backcourt status.

had a situation where team A turns the ball over in their front court, team B gets possession, but B1 loses it (still in team A frontcourt), and A1 dribbles loose ball near the centre line...doesn't grab it with both hands, but gains control with one hand and starts a dribble...and then steps on the centre line...called backcourt violation and coach went nuts, saying "no control"

seemed in control to me....

How about this situation? A1 dribbles and gets one foot into frontcourt. B1 stops players dribble. So now A1 has one foot in FC and one foot in BC. A1 then pivots the foot that is in BC so that foot still stays in BC. Is this a violation since at that point of the pivot(lifting foot up) A1 has actually established FC position?

If the dribble was controlled A regained team possesion from B's previous and then stepped on the division line which is backcourt. You made the right call. Let the Howler monkey howl!!! (or tell him to read the section about team control in the FED rule book) :D

Yup -- strange when compared to the 30ts for a dribble, but true.

What does 30ts mean?

I think that it means that he hit "0" instead of "p".:D

Sorry still do not understand. What does he mean by 3pts to a dribble?

The 3 pts is referring to both feet and the ball having to cross the division line into the frontcourt when a player is DRIBBLING the ball...in other words, a player can walk along the division line with his/her feet in the backcourt, but dribbling the ball in the frontcourt, and we have no viloation as not all 3 points (two feet and ball) are in the frontcourt...this only applies to a dribbled ball...hope this helps...