<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by steve gillies:
OK A1 shoots from top of key, ball bounces off rim,A2 jumps in air to save ball from going out of bounds.With one hand and not looking where he"s throwing it, toss"s it back and he lands out of bounds.The ball is not touched again til A3 controls ball in the backcourt.
Now does A2 have control while in the air and throwing a one handed no look heave?
resulting in backcourt or is it play-on? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the ball came to rest in A2's hand before he threw it, then he had control. He would be considered holding a live ball inbounds. If it was a slap or bat, then no. It doesn't matter if he was looking or not.

OK A1 shoots from top of key, ball bounces off rim,A2 jumps in air to save ball from going out of bounds.With one hand and not looking where he"s throwing it, toss"s it back and he lands out of bounds.The ball is not touched again til A3 controls ball in the backcourt.
Now does A2 have control while in the air and throwing a one handed no look heave?
resulting in backcourt or is it play-on?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Camron Rust:

There is a specific exception for a throwin where it allows a player to land with one or both feet in the backcourt. To qualify, the landing must be normal. It is possible that you could have a violation if the landing is not normal and the first foot down is in the frontcourt and the second down is in the back. It would be a judgement as to whether it would be a violation or not. I would determine it based on whether the player has established a stable and controlled position on that first foot and the second foot's contact is in a seperate action and delayed from the first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



If the ball is caught in the air on an in-bounds pass, the player can land however he needs to--that is, BOTH feet can come down wherever they come down, even if one is first in the frontcourt and then the second ends up on the division line or further into the backcourt. I'm not clear on how someone could land on one foot and establish a "stable and controlled position" on that one foot without the second foot landing as part of the same act. So, no violation . . . yet. But, if he then pivots on the frontcourt foot by lifting the backcourt foot, he can't put it BACK down in the backcourt. If he does, it's an over-and-back violation. This stuff CAN get tricky sometimes, eh?

I had a similar play last night in HS summer league play. Between quarters. A1 inbounds the ball to A2 who has one foot on the center line and other foot in his front court. A2 receives the inbound pass and passes the ball to A3 who is in the backcourt. Opposing coach wanted a backcourt. But standing on the line was the same as being in the backcourt. We had a no call. No back court violaiton. Coach excepted my explaination and even thanked me for expalining the rule to him.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jerry Baldwin:
Coach excepted my explaination and even thanked me for expalining the rule to him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You made this part up, right? http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

You have to assume that the attempted tap to a teammate was considered to be a controlled tap which would constitute team possesion - which would NOT have been present without a tip. The same ruling applies to a throw-in if a controlled tap goes backcourt and is retrieved by the offense.

Re: "The coach listened to my explanation, and thanked me for it..."

I'm adding this to my list of Tall Tales!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker:

... I'm not clear on how someone could land on one foot and establish a "stable and controlled position" on that one foot without the second foot landing as part of the same act. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To really split hairs....

I could see the player catching the ball in the air, landing with his first foot in the front court, the second foot also touches in the front court, however, he does not have balance and is falling. He then pivots on the first foot, moving the second foot into the backcourt when he finally gains his balance.

I'd hate to see this in a game, because I'm not sure how I'd call it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Ogg:
Now here's the next variation.

On the inbound, player A2 jumps from the front court, catches the ball in the air, and lands with the first foot in the front court, and the second foot in the back court.

Do you have a violation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep you do frank

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob jenkins:
Is this a quiz that you want rookies to answer, or are you really asking this?

If it's the former, all rookies stop reading now. If it's the latter, scroll down


v


v


v


v


v

Not a violation. The exception doens't mention anything about which foot lands first. THere's a specific case on this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the player jumps from back court and lands with one foot in the back and one in the front (stradling the line) this is not back court he/she may then move forward to front court.

But if he/she does it the way you say then a back court must have acurred.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luke:
If the player jumps from back court and lands with one foot in the back and one in the front (stradling the line) this is not back court he/she may then move forward to front court.

But if he/she does it the way you say then a back court must have acurred.

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is still no backcourt violation. The rules include an exception clause that allows a player to catch an inbound ball and land with feet on either side, stradling, or on the division line, in any order (even front court then back court) without a violation.

Most of the crowd will yell; many coaches will know the exception rule.

luke and fshrake,

See my explanation about 8 posts ago, if you haven't already. The gist again is that a player is allowed a "normal landing" with both feet if he secures the ball while in the air on a throw-in, jump ball, or a steal attempt. If one foot first lands in his front court and the other then lands in the backcourt, he is still LEGAL at that point. He just has to be careful what he does or how he pivots AFTER he lands.

luke and fshrake,

See my explanation about 8 posts ago, if you haven't already. The gist again is that a player is allowed a "normal landing" with both feet if he secures the ball while in the air on a throw-in, jump ball, or a steal attempt. If one foot first lands in his front court and the other then lands in the backcourt, he is still LEGAL at that point. He just has to be careful what he does or how he pivots AFTER he lands.

I used to debate all these inbound cases to myself all the time until a very good official and friend of mine answered one of those questions. He said plain and simple you can not have a back court throw-in from anywhere on the court.........

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
You made this part up, right? http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually Mr. Baldwin is one the most respected referees in Arkansas. And coachs wont give him a hard time. From wht I have seen and heard of him, he is not prone to making things up.