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...

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

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

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.)

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.

beat me too it
 

You are way too quick for me mark... ;)

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.

Is this a trick question? :D 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

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...

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

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]

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.

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.

This is a BC violation
 

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]

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.

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

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). :)

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.

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]

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 :)

2 feet
1 ball
???
__
4

That is pretty straightforward
 

Can't get much simpler than this...:)

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).

OOOOOPS
 

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

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.

So what is it?
 

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.

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 :cool:

Re: So what is it?
 

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!

Either I'm not properly understanding some of these posts, or some of us still aren't getting it. The original situation is a violation. JAR's modified situation above is also a violation. And the two cases are both violations for the same reason. Team A was the last to touch the ball before the ball went into the backcourt and then was the first to touch the ball after it had been in the backcourt. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that. Both situations are violations.

The only reason the modified situation is up for debate is b/c the ball got back into the frontcourt before being touched by Team A. That is irrelevant. Team A touched it last before it went into the backcourt and then was also the first to touch it after it went into the backcourt. Therefore, violation.

Chuck

If we think of the whole backcourt being painted (colored) the same color as the division live it will make this easier.

Player in FC steps on colored area. BC violation.

A1 bounce passes to A2 ball hits colored area also BC violation

Just a thought

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Jan 8th, 2003 at 04:10 PM]

Now you're getting it.
 

I like thought MN 3.
Going back to my original post, the intent of the backcourt rule is to keep a team in their front court once they have established that position. Once you accept that, all the other rules that help define the backcourt violation become very logical.

Re: So what is it?
 

Please cite a rule that backs up your "take." I have cited rule that implies just the opposite.

And this particular case you are citing, assuming the ball has already been F/C, is a clearcut violation. A ball rolling on the line is in the B/C by definition, because the line is B/C. Therefore, there is no question that a ball that has been F/C and is now rolling on the division line is B/C and a F/C offensive player touching it commits a violation.

What he said.

As Chuck said, this is very clearly a backcourt violation.

Again, as he said, it's not where the ball was touched but who touched it last before it went frontcourt to backcourt and who touched it first after it went frontcourt to backcourt.


Summarizing from Hawk's and Bob's posts:

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

Thank you, Camron, Chuck, and Hawks Coach. You have restored my confidence. The first part of this thread was downright scary.
The officials out there that do not know this is a violation should have their whistles revoked!

PS The exact play described in the original post happened in a JV game out here last year. The JV officials correctly called it a backcourt violation. However, the varsity officials doing the next game questioned them on it. Two of them thought it was not a violation and the other one said it was. I settled the debate/bet in the bar that night. Varsity guys had to pick up the tab.