Backcourt Violation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Assuming A1 threw the pass from the backcourt into the frontcourt where B1 batted it back to A1 in the backcourt, there is no violation. Team A never had team control in the frontcourt. That one is not controversial...it's easy.



A still never had team control in the frontcourt, so this isn't a violation either the way you've described it. Try again.

Sure they did, TC never ceased, and the ball gained FC status.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure they did, TC never ceased, and the ball gained FC status.

Crap, my bad. I meant player control...I changed it.

Neither are a violation either way.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Crap, my bad. I meant player control...I changed it.

Neither are a violation either way.

Also, and easier, and how the rule has always worked: A was not last to touch before the ball returned to the BC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Is anyone going to address these controversial situations:

1. where A1 is near the division line and makes a pass that B1 (while standing in A's front court) bats the ball back towards A1 so that A1 catches the ball in the air while he is still in the back court.

or 2. where A1 is in the back court near the division line, makes a pass cross court towards A2 who is also in the back court, but B1 (who is standing in the frontcourt) deflects the ball, but A2 still catches the ball in the air.

What's the correct call in these two situations. I don't want to join in the argument, I just like to start one and sit back and watch !!!

I think FED has both of these as violations. Most here disagree with the interp -- it came out about 2 years ago.

[DrPete]

Bob is right on both counts according to NFHS interpretations.

1. Both are BC violations because A1 when he touched the ball batted back from the FC to BC (ie ball had front court status), and A2 when he caught the pass that was deflected from the FC to BC, was the last to touch the ball after it had FC status, and the first to touch it in the BC. The reasoning behind these being BC violations is that A1 simultaneously caused the ball to be in the BC after FC and was the first to touch in the BC. Much like the ball hitting a player out of bounds--- he is the one who caused the ball to be out of bounds and thus the OOB violation on him.

2. Bob is also right that most of us disagree with this interp and reasoning as well. But it is what it is.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by DrPete

The reasoning behind these being BC violations is that A1 simultaneously caused the ball to be in the BC after FC and was the first to touch in the BC

Many of us, including myself, disagree with the "Struckoff" interpretation. I do not believe one act can constitute two separate events.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Many of us, including myself, disagree with the "Struckoff" interpretation. I do not believe one act can constitute two separate events.

Not only two separate events but events that, by rule, must occur at different times for it to be a violation...one before it goes into the backcourt and one after. Einstein would need to be brought in to resolve the implications of the the bending of space-time that is necessary for that situation to occur.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not only two separate events but events that, by rule, must occur at different times for it to be a violation...one before it goes into the backcourt and one after. Einstein would need to be brought in to resolve the implications of the the bending of space-time that is necessary for that situation to occur.

Actually, you want McTaggart for before/after, but nobody's ever heard of him.

Also, Einstein seems to have been wrong.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Bob is right on both counts according to NFHS interpretations.

1. Both are BC violations because A1 when he touched the ball batted back from the FC to BC (ie ball had front court status), and A2 when he caught the pass that was deflected from the FC to BC, was the last to touch the ball after it had FC status, and the first to touch it in the BC. The reasoning behind these being BC violations is that A1 simultaneously caused the ball to be in the BC after FC and was the first to touch in the BC. Much like the ball hitting a player out of bounds--- he is the one who caused the ball to be out of bounds and thus the OOB violation on him.

2. Bob is also right that most of us disagree with this interp and reasoning as well. But it is what it is.

Dr. Pete: Butt out! You said you were going to sit back and watch!

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Dr. Pete: Butt out! You said you were going to sit back and watch!

I couldn't resist getting some of you guys all riled up!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Crap, my bad. I meant player control...I changed it.

Neither are a violation either way.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Also, and easier, and how the rule has always worked: A was not last to touch before the ball returned to the BC.

PC in the front court was not required until they jacked up the rule this year.

[dahoopref]

I don't know what the NFHS ruling is, but here is the 2011 NCAA Casebook play:

Pg 95

A.R. 229. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts
to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his/her front
court near the division line.

(1) A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in
his/her front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then
lands with one or both feet in the back court.

(2) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces intoTeam A’s front court. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s front
court, it is deflected into Team A’s back court, where A3 retrieves
it.

(3) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into
the back court. A2 then goes into the back court and recovers the
fumble.

RULING:

(1) Violation. When B1 deflected A1’s inbounds pass, his/
her legal touching caused the throw-in to end. A1, having established
front-court status when he/she left Team A’s front court, gained player
and team control in the air. When A1 lands with one or both feet in his/
her back court, he/she has committed a back-court violation. The exception
to the back-court rules are only applicable for the player who made
the initial touch on the ball.
(Rule 4-68.4 and 4-3)

(2) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor
team control had been established in the front court.
(Rule 9-12.1)

(3) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor
team control had been established in the front court.
(Rule 9-12.1 and 4-3)

[bob jenkins]

I don't know what the NFHS ruling is, but here is the 2011 NCAA Casebook play:

same rulings in NFHS.

[deecee]

I go by a simple saying.

"First to touch, last to touch"

If your team is the first to touch the ball in the BC and it was the last to touch in the FC then its a BC violation.

This does not hold true for Inbounds as PLAYER and TEAM control must be met for a BC violation to be called.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Is anyone going to address these controversial situations:

1. where A1 is near the division line and makes a pass that B1 (while standing in A's front court) bats the ball back towards A1 so that A1 catches the ball in the air while he is still in the back court.

or 2. where A1 is in the back court near the division line, makes a pass cross court towards A2 who is also in the back court, but B1 (who is standing in the frontcourt) deflects the ball, but A2 still catches the ball in the air.

What's the correct call in these two situations. I don't want to join in the argument, I just like to start one and sit back and watch !!!

See 9.9.1 Sit C.