Yet another backcourt sitch

[williebfree]

Just read the exact scenario in the casebook yesterday. (I cannot cite the page or rule reference.)

As you are aware,all three "objects" (two feet and ball) need to cross the division line to establish frontcourt status. Once FC status is established, it is a violation if ANY of these "objects" contact the division line or return to the BC.

As indicated in the casebook scenario, it becomes a violation when any of the teammates are FIRST TO TOUCH the ball.

[Edited by williebfree on Jan 8th, 2003 at 11:17 AM]

[Stan]

I have understood, through discussion on this board, that once frontcourt staus is achieved, to view BC violations as an OOB, if anthing touches or crosses the line, it is a violation. I guess that will still hold true.

[LarryS]

Oh my gosh...did a coach just get us with his rules knowledge?

Since players (and balls) are where they were till they get where their going, I can see where this is a violation. I'll admit I appear to have been incorrect in my earlier assessment of the situation, but reserve the right to hold final judgement until I have an opportunity to read the further discussion and refer to the Case Book.

Hope this never happens to me in a game because I am yet to encounter a coach that I could explain this to and make them understand without the benefit of a T (including the jerk from last night).

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by LarryS
Since players (and balls) are where they were till they get where their going, I can see where this is a violation.

Larry
Again, you seem to miss my point. The ball is not in a backcourt status at the moment of the touch, or at least it does not need to be. The ball can be bounced in such a way that it bounces backcourt, then bounces frontcourt, then is touched, and it is still a violation - first to touch rule. The ball in this latte case has frontcourt status at the moment it is touched because it has bounced in the frontcourt after it bounced backcourt. But the key is that it was never touched by the defense after it went backcourt, so the violation still occurs when the offense touches first - regardless of the ball's current status.

[Mark Dexter]

Hmmm.

Methinks our "four points" backcourt definition might need some tweaking - or we need to put in an exception.

I'm still not convinced that this is a violation, though - the rule is somewhat ambiguous - shall not "be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the frontcourt." I prefer the wording of the NCAA rule - I can read it without getting a headache.

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Jan 8th, 2003 at 11:36 AM]

[Hawks Coach]

Last two points of four points definition are. . .

3. Last to touch F/C
4. First to touch after going backcourt

No need to tweak anything - just a need to understand what it means. I got caught on this one about a month ago I think

[Stan]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Hmmm.

Methinks our "four points" backcourt definition might need some tweaking - or we need to put in an exception.

2 feet
1 ball
???
__
4

[williebfree]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Last two points of four points definition are. . .

3. Last to touch F/C
4. First to touch after going backcourt

No need to tweak anything - just a need to understand what it means. I got caught on this one about a month ago I think

Can't get much simpler than this...

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Stan

2 feet
1 ball
???
__
4

1. Team A control
2. Ball in Team A's F/C
3. Team A last to touch in F/C
4. Team A first to touch after ball goes B/C

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

1. Team A control
2. Ball in Team A's F/C
3. Team A last to touch in F/C
4. Team A first to touch after ball goes B/C

#3 is "Team A last to touch before ball goes to b/c" -- actually touching the ball in the F/C is not required (this would be the "opposite" example of the most recent case presented in this thread).

[Hawks Coach]

Got me again! This is what I blew last month. I can be trained I think.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by 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'.

This is a case, I think, where we are getting away from rules interpretation and getting into a word game. As I read this post, the part about spin really seems irrelevant.
Forget the spin. Both A players are standing just on the frontcourt side of the division line. A1 throws a bounce pass which hits on the line and is caught by A2, who has both feet in the frontcourt. Is this a violation? Of course. 4-4-3 A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. BUT, if we just like to argue, (I know I do) let's go and practice our spin pass some more. If it bounces in the backcourt then spins forward and bounces again, this time in frontcourt, before A2 picks it up, is this a violation? I don't know, but I don't think it matters because: 1. I won't see the situation in my lifetime. 2. If I do, nobody else will know either, so whatever we call or don't call will make one side happy and the other, less happy.

[RecRef]

My take is that it is not a violation. If it were, than a A1 or A2 standing, or sitting, or lying on the floor “in his front court” could not pickup a loose ball rolling along and on the division line.

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by just another ref
...if we just like to argue, (I know I do) let's go and practice our spin pass some more. If it bounces in the backcourt then spins forward and bounces again, this time in frontcourt, before A2 picks it up, is this a violation? I don't know, but I don't think it matters because: 1. I won't see the situation in my lifetime. 2. If I do, nobody else will know either, so whatever we call or don't call will make one side happy and the other, less happy.

I almost thought of asking this, too, just for the heck of it. The play I did mention, however, came very close to happening, and I would have liked to have known the ruling should it have occured. It's one of those one in a lifetime calls that, potentially, could set you apart from an "average" official.

Just because something should never occur doesn't mean it won't

[bard]

My take is that it is not a violation. If it were, than a A1 or A2 standing, or sitting, or lying on the floor “in his front court” could not pickup a loose ball rolling along and on the division line.

As I read this, I've got a violation. If A has F/C status, and A is the last to touch the ball in F/C, the ball hits the division line and "A1 or A2" picks it up, it's a violation, whehter they are standing, sitting, or lying!