Back Court Violation Situation
 

I am not sure if I kicked this call or not so I'd like your input.

A1 has the ball in his back court and passes to A2 (this is not a throw-in). B1 while sprinting lunges and steals the pass. His fist foot lands in his (B's) front court and the second foot lands in the back court. The thing is, he wasn't "jumping" in my opinion. It was elongated steps lunging for the ball (which could be argued as well). This could be deemed splitting hairs. I called the BC violation, knowing the rule, but my definition of "jump" and the coaches weren't the same....... Thoughts?

Here is the rule:
ART. 3
During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

Hard to say without seeing your play. I'd give any benefit of the doubt to the defense in this case. It sounds like you had a good look and made your call. Hard to fault you on that.

HTBT, but I'd probably lean toward the "lunge" constituting a "jump," and not calling a violation.

In such a case, I would give the benefit of any doubt to the defender.

Also, if he was moving so fast that both feet were in the air when he caught the ball, that's a jump to me.

Agreed. I would have a hard time penalizing the defense in this situation.

Confucius Say ...
 

If you are not sure of something, don't call it.

Or as our former interpreter says, "When in doubt, don't be".

Between the exception for the defense intercepting a pass and the requirement for a dribbler to have 3 points in the frontcourt, I'd say you could safely "no-call" this one.

This ain't a dribbler, my friend.

Ah, read too fast. In that case, I'd go with the spirit of the exception (9-9-3), which is to allow a quick defender to steal the ball without being guilty of a cheap BC violation.

But you already said that in post 4. :o

No BC violation, and B has an exception.

I concur. No BC.

+1