Right on Mark!!! Unless as Tugger pointed out, the official determined that the player who batted the ball had actually gained control (defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds) while batting the ball, this is a no-call situation. A simple batting of the ball is not control. For a bat of the ball to be control, in my humble opinion, the player would have to appear to catch and then throw the ball with one or both hands rather than to just bat it as if it were a volleyball spike.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
This violation is an often discussed topic on this and other boards. It seems like every few months, the topic comes up. Here's the situation on this call. Please copy and paste it into a Word document and save for future reference.

There must be four elements present to have an over and back call. If even one of these elements is missing, there is no violation. No exceptions. The four elements are: 1) there must be team control 2) the ball must have achieved frontcourt status 3) the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in their frontcourt and 4) that same team must be the first to touch the ball after it has been in their backcourt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark,

My Microsoft Word program is corrupt. Now what? http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

coaching a 7th grade boys game this weekend. our player shoots a long 2. hits the
rim. ricochets to another of our players. he bats it back - beyond the half court line into our back court. our player grabs it. ref blows whistle. over and back is the call.
is this the right call?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by number 26:
coaching a 7th grade boys game this weekend. our player shoots a long 2. hits the
rim. ricochets to another of our players. he bats it back - beyond the half court line into our back court. our player grabs it. ref blows whistle. over and back is the call.
is this the right call? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After the shot was taken, team control had been lost. While the ball is being batted around, no team control has been re-established. Putting myself in the ref's shoes who made the call, he must've determined that it was a "controlled" batting of the ball. If your player intentionally batted it to his teammate knowing that he could retrieve it cleanly in the backcourt, then I believe the referee must have determined that the act was no different than catching the ball and throwing it.

thanks. i discussed it with the ref at next stoppage.he expressed a some doubt about his interpretation. he was thinking the last possesion was ours before the shot. anyway, we agreed the oft discussed - on this board - back court rules are surely tricky. i told him to look here for the right answer.

This violation is an often discussed topic on this and other boards. It seems like every few months, the topic comes up. Here's the situation on this call. Please copy and paste it into a Word document and save for future reference.

There must be four elements present to have an over and back call. If even one of these elements is missing, there is no violation. No exceptions. The four elements are: 1) there must be team control 2) the ball must have achieved frontcourt status 3) the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in their frontcourt and 4) that same team must be the first to touch the ball after it has been in their backcourt.

number 26 -

Welocme to our site -

Experienced refs do NOT have a problem with over and back and know the rule better than anybody. It is often a point of emphasis and there are numerous examples in our case book and illustrated book. You should come to this site as often as you can to learn the rules. For example, A1 is inbounding at half court. A1 passes to A2 who catches the ball in the frontcourt while airborne and lands on both feet in the backcourt with the ball. Is this over and back?

Jack

thanks again
imho, the entire over and back situation is the most misinterpreted rule in basketball - by refs (forgive me), players, coaches, and fans.
and, can't be discussed too much.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jackgil:
number 26 -

Welocme to our site -

Experienced refs do NOT have a problem with over and back and know the rule better than anybody. It is often a point of emphasis and there are numerous examples in our case book and illustrated book. You should come to this site as often as you can to learn the rules. For example, A1 is inbounding at half court. A1 passes to A2 who catches the ball in the frontcourt while airborne and lands on both feet in the backcourt with the ball. Is this over and back?

Jack<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jack - I'll let some of the newbies try to answer your question. I just wanted to say how fate works in mysterious ways. After discussing the over and back rule here yesterday, I had the "weird" call last night in a summer league game. A1 dribbling in front court. B1 slaps the ball off A1's leg into A's backcourt where it was recovered by A1. Over and back call - coach A yelled, "But she hit it." Like I've never heard THAT before. "It went off your player in the frontcourt into the backcourt where she touched it coach - that's the rule" was my reply.

Maybe it's karma.

geez
you'll love this answer re:1/2 court inbound airborne landing in back court...
i tell my players (and parents) you will learn the most important bball element from me i can teach you. never argue a ref's call. i, as a coach, and my players, and eventually the parents catch on, never ever argue any calls. or even come close. therefore, i assume the ref knows the rule of the question you are asking - makes the right call - and i don't spend even a second thinking about it.
so, my answer is i don't know. but a good question.
with regard to my initial over/back query, i hope i made it clear i asked the ref conversationally and politely during a play stoppage. and that was only because i thought a shot erased the possibility of back court.
i can talk all day about our american athlete's lack of respect for refs - i.e. the misguided infatuation with the b knights and billy martins and john mcenroes of the world ...
i look forward to this board because it reinforces how little i know about bball rules.

number 26

I didnt mean to be too harsh with you. I was just trying to clarify that refs that have been doing calling for lets say 3 or more years have got the over and back down like a book. They've seen it all. In my first game that I refed I blew an over and back call that cost a team the game and swore I wouldn't do that again if I could help it. It is very frustrating to the coaches and players to get this call wrong. Glad you have joined our group.

Like Mark said I'll let some newbies take a crack at this one.

Jack

I am not exactly a newby, but I'm not an official either and thought I would shoot a reply to see if it is right. I think you apply the "you are where you are til you get where you are going rule," meaning that the receiver was still front court while in the air and went backcourt only after catching the ball and landing backcourt - violation, same as if reciever had both feet on the ground front court and received it front court.

I feel for you guys trying to keep all of this straight and make the call in real time. I will say that most coaches only get parts of this rule, players about half, and refs tend to get it right, although I have seen the odd cases that are discussed here where the refs do not make the correct call. Usually however, I find myself amazed at the number of times I see situations like the ball off the leg call that are made correctly and done on the fly. (with one coach standing on the sidelines signalling deflection!)

Seems to make sense coach. Any new refs disagree? (Don't look at your books!) *grin*

Jack

If memory serves me This falls under exeption
#1 under backcourt violations, as long as both feet were off the ground and the player is the first to touch the ball he may land in the back court with out penalty.(NF)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PAULK:
If memory serves me This falls under exeption
#1 under backcourt violations, as long as both feet were off the ground and the player is the first to touch the ball he may land in the back court with out penalty.(NF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations PAULK. I don't know if you are a new official, but you are new to this board (at least under this name). You got this one right. Be prepared to chuckle at the fans who scream for a call on this.

I waffled on this before posting my initial reply for one reason. I was not sure that the ball had achieved frontcourt status. I decided that, like a game day official, i had to go with one call or the other.

Is that the reason for this being the interpretation of the rule? Would it matter if the ball had started in a clear frontcourt position, as opposed to at halfcourt? I was not clear about the ball in frontcourt part of the rule, as I believe that it is mainly applied to a dribbler (both feet and ball before frontcourt), from previous posts I have seen on this subject.

OK newbies - try this one. A1 in backcourt. A1 attempts pass to A2 who is in frontcourt but the pass hits an official in the frontcourt and bounces back to A1 who touches it in the backcourt. What's the call, if anything?

BTW - I've only seen this happen once in 21 years of officiating, but of course, it will happen in your next game http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

Just got back to the site and saw your post PaulK. Correct answer. No violation for this exception.

Jack

Mark,

The correct call would be....over and back. Just like when a ball hits an official out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds, hitting the official in the frontcourt causes the ball to become frontcourt status. When touched by A1 in the backcourt it is a violation.

------------------
Mr. Kelly Spann

While I would agree that the ball achieved frontcourt status upon hitting the official, there is no team control, so I would say no violation.

Do you not need all three points to establish front court position? (ball and both feet) The ball hitting the official definitely causes it to have front court status but what about the other two points? In FIBA international rules it is definitely a back court violation but NCAA I would say no.

Oh Mark, you're a sneaky one! Rule 9, NFHS, Section 9, Note, "If a player of the team in control in its backcourt causes the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to the backcourt still in team control without touching a player in the frontcourt, it is a violation for such player or teammate to be first to touch it there." Don't you love how they write these things! Therefore, VIOLATION!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hawks Coach:
While I would agree that the ball achieved frontcourt status upon hitting the official, there is no team control, so I would say no violation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Team control begins simultaneously with player control and continues until a shot is released, the other team secures control, or the ball becomes dead (violation, foul, timeout). Therefore, when A1 releases the ball on a pass, team control is still present (player control is not).

My bad - I misread this as another inbound situation with A1 inbounding from backcourt, which is why I said no team control. With A1 possessing the ball inbounds already, team control exists, should be a violation.

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

BTW - I've only seen this happen once in 21 years of officiating, but of course, it will happen in your next game http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mark
Just curious - was the call made when you saw it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shawn LeBleu:
Do you not need all three points to establish front court position? (ball and both feet) The ball hitting the official definitely causes it to have front court status but what about the other two points?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"three points" only applies to a dribbler. Once a ball is caught and/or passed, this requirement is irrelevant.

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?

<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>

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.

No. Both feet and the ball must be in the frontcourt in order to be "Frontcourt". Right? (I'm a newbie) *grin*.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by doghead:
No. Both feet and the ball must be in the frontcourt in order to be "Frontcourt". Right? (I'm a newbie) *grin*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. As I stated earlier, this only applies to a dribbler.

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 <em>normal</em>. It is possible that you could have a violation of the landing is not <em>normal</em> 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.

<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.