Backcourt Violation
 

Hi Guys,
I think I have this figured out but the language in the book is a little confusing to me so I thought I would confirm with the experts.

Team A has the ball in their frontcourt, Team B tips a pass, that is then tipped by Team A, and into the back court area, Team A player retrieves it in the backcourt area.

No violation?

Not Quite
 

No. Violation.
Rule 9-9-1, in spite of whatever confusing verbage it may contain, states the principle sometimes called "Last to Touch, First to Touch", which would be a backcourt violation, assuming your Team A has both player and team control in the front court before all this happens.
If the player from your Team B was the last to touch it, then it would not be a violation.
(2011-12 Casebook 9.9.1C is in error on this or a similar point, apparently; cf. thread from about a month ago on this; or is the casebook correct but the rule revised so that it doesn't match the casebook anymore...I can't recall.)
Right?

When does Team A tip the ball?

If Team B causes the ball to go into the backcourt and Team A retrieves it then no violation.

If Team A causes the ball to go into the backcourt then they have violated because they had player and team control in the frontcourt and then caused the ball to go into the backcourt. A Tip by Team B doesn't end the control that Team A had.

Team A, who has team and player control, throws a pass in their frontcourt that is tipped by Team B THEN tipped by Team A and flies into the backcourt (all in the same flight), then Team A retrieves in the backcourt.

Violation.

Violation, even though 98% of coaches think they get a pass (and will helpfully make the "tipped ball" signal for you) if B touched the ball somewhere in there. ;)

Backcourt violation. Criteria a backcourt violation:

1. Team control (and player control first if coming from a throw-in). Check
2. Ball achieves a frontcourt position. Check
3. Team in control is the last to touch the ball before it gains a backcourt position. Check
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after it gained a backcourt status. Check

Just like everyone else has pointed out, this would be a violation. Team A has control, Team A caused the ball to go into the backcourt, Team A is the first to touch the ball.

Now if Team B had been the last to touch the ball, then Team A is okay to retrieve the ball without violation.

Careful! That's not why. :eek:

This is very important to realize. If the OP's scenario occurred during a throw-in, then no BC violation.

Now I'm confused. Why?

Causing the ball to go into the backcourt is not a violation at any time. It is a poor choice of words.

Keep with the tried and true 4-point check...

1. Does A have team control (the old team control...started when there is player control inbounds)?
2. Did the ball return to the backcourt after obtaining frontcourt status?
3. Was team A the last to touch the ball BEFORE the point in time in step #2.
4. Was team A the first to touch the ball AFTER point in time in step #2.

NOTE: The location of the touches in steps 3 & 4 are not relevant.

If you answer yes to all 4 questions, you have a backcourt violation...if you answer no to any of them, you do not have a backcourt violation.

Don't confuse the issue with team control for a throw-in. It has nothing to do with backcourt violations.

9-9-1 requires team control be established inbounds. Talking about throw-in team control only screws things up, when it has nothing to do with it.

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 !!!

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 player control in the frontcourt. That one is not controversial...it's easy.

A still never had player 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Also, Einstein seems to have been wrong.

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

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

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

NCAA Casebook on this play
 

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)

same rulings in NFHS.

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.

See 9.9.1 Sit C.

Not So Fast ...
 

You sure?

Faster than light finding faulted in new neutrino test - CBS News

Right now it's 2 to 1. I'm on the edge of my seat!

Back To The Future ...
 

Just wait until they bring out the flux capacitor. Only then will it get really exciting.

Well, if that were true, would we have to account for the effect when deciding if a shot were released before the LED lights behind the backboard lit up?

The moment I hear my first sonic boom in a basketball game, I'll start ruling based on the possibility that the ball may be moving faster than light.

No, those were neutrinos. Photons still haven't gotten any speeding tickets yet, and they're what you can actually see.