Another change to the backcourt rule
 

As I was reviewing my pre-season test, I noticed another change to Rule 9-9 that I don't think has been mentioned. 9-9-3 provides the exception in certain circumstances for an airborne player to jump from his/her own frontcourt, secure the ball and land in the backcourt.

Prior to this year, it was stated that a player from the "team not in control" was given this exception, and then it provided three examples -- during the jump ball, throw-in or while on defense. Now, however, only the examples remain in the rule. The phrase "team not in control" was deleted.

Is this a big deal? It changes at least one play that I can think of (because it was on the exam):

Previously, A3 would have been covered by the exception in 9-9-3. But since A3 is not on defense, and this is not a jump ball or throw-in, the exception (as written) no longer applies.

How many ways can you screw up one rule????? :mad:

Is anyone on "defense" here? What if B2 jumped from his FC caught the ball and landed in his BC?

Nope. That's exactly the point. So nobody gets the benefit of the exception when team control is lost due to a try being attempted.

The only reason I mentioned the shooting team specifically is that it was the test question.

Scrapper, are you sure A3 previously would have been covered by the exception? If Team A's missed shot ends up in their backcourt Team A can retrieve it without penalty; but when A3 jumps from his FC and catches the ball team control has been re-established and it is a violation when he lands in his BC. I don't think that's ever been regarded as an exception.

That's why it's called an "exception."

Not correct...A3's team was not in control after the shot. A3 could legally jump from his/her frontcourt, catch the ball, and land in the backcourt. It was covered by the exception. Remember, the list of scenarios here were only examples, not an exhaustive list.

Man, I cannot remember that at all. Do you have any previous CB plays? I can only remember the 3 exceptions being on a throw-in, jump ball, and in the situation where a defensive player jumps from his FC, intercepts the pass and lands in his BC. I understand A3's team no longer has team control after the missed shot but cannot remember reading where the exception included allowing a player to jump from FC, catch the ball, land in BC after a missed shot. If you can find it I would appreciate it. Thanks.

This is just my opinion, Billy (and the reason I started the thread), but I don't think you needed a case play prior to this year. The rule specifically said that the exception applied to a player from the "team not in control". To me, that explicitly means that if your team doesn't have team control, the exception applies to you.

The previous rule reads... a player from "the team not in control" followed by in parenthesis (defensive player). The corresponding casebook play that I remember was the one I mentioned earlier where the defensive player may jump from his FC, intercept, and land in BC. Casebook 9.9.1 D may offer some insight. When A's throw-in pass is deflected by B1 neither team has team control for purposes of backcourt violations, yet when A2 gains control in the air coming from the FC and lands in BC it is a violation. My thinking was it is (and has been) the same following a missed shot.

[QUOTE=billyu2;803196]When A's throw-in pass is deflected by B1 neither team has team control for purposes of backcourt violations, yet when A2 gains control in the air coming from the FC and lands in BC it is a violation. [QUOTE]

But wasn't that because the exception only applies to the first player to touch the ball? Wasn't there a ruling on that? That's like a player who jumps from the frontcourt, catches the throw-in and passes it to a teammate in the backcourt. That's a violation because the exception only applies to the first guy to get to the ball. Right?

It was because the deflection by B1 ended the throw-in and thus the throw-in exception no longer applied to A2.

I remember a long discussion on this prior to the previous clarification. One side insisted the parenthetical examples were exhaustive, the other took the opposite opinion. After the clarification, it seemed obvious the exception only applied to the provided examples. Otherwise, the teams not in control would have extended after a tipped throw in pass.