Backcourt Violation Play
 

As requested from berserkBBK

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RxT7sprhEx8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good call!

Agree. The dribble before the ball went BC looked like player control to me. Good call.

Great call. Notice the talking heads never even mention the dribble.

Is NCAA rule the same as NFHS?

Did he have control inbounds?

Yes, both rule sets are the same in regards to backcourt violations.

Good Call.
 

Once he pushed the ball to the floor I have player control.

What if a teammate had made the recovery in the backcourt?

Why would that matter?

Same as if he caught it, ever so briefly, and fumbled into the BC.

What did he do which defined control in frontcourt?

Dribbled. In the brief moment before it hit his foot, he had player control by rule.

I agree. But the rest of the world did not in another thread a while back.

The first two times he touched the ball, it was a fumble. The third was a dribble.

In fact, Tirico mentions the dribble at 0:17.

Of course, he thought Izzo's complaint was a tip, when clearly he was arguing that his guy never had PC.

Good call.

Thank you APG!
I saw this and thought they nailed it. It was a goofy play, and I remembered this was a type of play that was discussed during the rule change to team control during a throw in (NFHS).
Ps: Go Blue!

This doesn't have anything to do with team control on a throw-in. That only applies to the throwing team fouling during a throw-in. Backcourt rules have not changed. This would have been a BC violation last year too.

I watched that game. You could read lips and kind of make out the conversation between Earl Walton and Tom Izzo. Seems like Izzo was arguing that his player didn't have control and Earl is trying to explain to him that the second he dribbled the ball, even if it was off his foot, he established control. I think Earl finally got through to him. Great call in a pressure situation.

I understand that. I guess a no call on a non controlled ball would have been better to explain that.

I've done a little announcing over the years. Before I started wearing stripes, I sure would have liked to know the full boat of requirements for backcourt. Simply put, someone needs to step up and teach these guys, especially at the national level. The more announcers that get it right, the fewer fans there will be to get it wrong.

Not true. Backcourt rules changed quite a bit, causing at least one major discrepancy.

Technically not true anymore. NFHS rule now requires player control in front court for plays where ball touches a player in front court and returns too backcourt. NCAA doesn't. (I tripped on that earlier this season.)

Wording my be different but in application, the rules are the exact same.

I don't think so. A1 in backcourt pass into front court that is deflected off or by an A front court player back into back court and first touched there by A is not a BC violation in NFHS because of this editorial change. (Think A player that doesn't catch the pass or isn't expecting it near the division line.)

That's still a backcourt violation under NFHS rules. The player control portion that was added to the rule applies to when coming out of a throw-in.

*9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt.

RULING: In (a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second count.

?
9-9-1 doesn't mention throw-ins.

So which one is it?

4-4-4
A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location.

9-9-1
A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

I could've sworn that they said adding team control on throw-ins was not meant to change any other aspects of the game except not awarding FTs when the offensive team fouls.

If thats not a violation, it will definitely be a technical foul as that is the expected call.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the "player & team control" part is in regards to a throw-in from OOB directly into the frontcourt.

Weird. In my mind, this conflicts with the addition of "player" into 9-9-1.

That's because the folks with NFHS worded the rule poorly. All you need to know that adding team control doesn't change how we call plays. We call everything the exact same way as we had before...the only exception is if the throw-in team commits a foul, no free throws are awarded.

That's what APG's saying, and what is probably, I guess, intended here, but the written rule contradicts the case 9.9.1.c. 9-9-1 does not mention throw-ins, so by my logic, it should apply to all backcourt situations - not just throw-ins.

By my logic, if you're going to add NCAA rule(s) to the HS game simply copy & paste their rule(s) word for word.
The Federation messed up here & thats why they sent the clarification out that stated the rule change is only related to not shooting FTs when the offensive team fouls.

So once again, the NFHS rule is written worse than the NCAA book. Are they afraid to copy the rule wording when making rules identical, for fear of copyright infringement? I don't live in an NFHS state anymore. Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

(Thanks APG)

You're IAABO correct? Board 4?
This is what was sent to me by our State Rules Interpreter (DS)


Directly from the NFHS 2011-12 Rule change powerpoint regarding the team control during the throwin change: Only team-control fouls occurring during a throw-in were affected by this change.The change does NOT affect any of the following rules:
• Three seconds in the lane
• Traveling/Dribbling
• Backcourt
• Alternating-possession throw-in rules

Minor edits occurred to some of these rules for clarification.

I dont believe they admit guilt, they just clarify :D

There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

Of course it does. But, as has been explained here (and elsewhere) approximately 87 times, it doesn't mean what it says. The play is a BC violation.

How so? What about a backcourt violation changed?

This is what I was talking about.

Things that make you go hmmmm...

Easy fix to the poor wording:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control <s>in the frontcourt</s> if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

One can't fumble the ball until player control has been established. What happened in the video would be best described as a muff or bobble.

Read 9-9-1 from last year and this year. Then look at the case plays for 9.9.1. This has been pointed out numerous times on the forum. They changed the backcourt rule so that it now contradicts a case play, but they want us to rule the way the case play says.

TIP: around the text, put < STRIKE> and < /STRIKE> (minus the spaces inside the braces that I put in to make it show)

to get <STRIKE> and </STRIKE>

Good point. And, I agree, the words matter.

< s > < /s > Also works

Snaqs is an <s>instigator</s> agitator.

Hey, <s>what did I do?</s> never mind.

And as I've mentioned in other posts the same wording needs to be added to the 10-second backcourt rule concerning when the count should start after a throw-in.

Meaning if a throw-in is tipped/muffed in/into the backcourt the 10-second count doesn't start until player control is established.

Unless of course the 10-second count should start immediately when the ball gains backcourt status after a throw-in. No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in. Even asked Al Battista once in camp and he kinded hemmed and hawwed an answer and couldn't give me a clear rules reference, a definite rarity for him.

What they want is clear. The only change desired from last year's rules is the bonus for fouls committed by the throwing-in team during the throw-in. Don't start the count until player control is first established in the backcourt.

I know what they FED wants is clear, no changes in rulings based on the new team control/throw-in rule other than TC fouls. I've been part of the discussions since the new team control rules were brought up last year.

That's not what my post is about:

I'm confused as to why you have been clearly answered as to what they want but not clearly answered as to what they intend, as I'm fairly sure these are the same thing.

Easiest way for me to answer is this: show me in the rule or case book when the rulesmakers (NCAA and NFHS) want you to start your 10-second count. Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

I already know what the NFHS wants in regards to the effect of TC on a throw-in as I provided new wording for 9-9-1 to correct the conflict between the currently worded rule for a backcourt violation which conflicts with the intent of the new rule. I have read the powerpoint slides. I'm talking about wording in the rule book.

(I haven't seen prior discussions on this on the forum, so I apologize if I'm repeating things already said.) The NCAA written rule makes sense, IMO, but I suppose both could be worded differently to say something like
I agree that the NFHS rule doesn't apply completely anymore. And the case plays, I agree, imply that the count could start on the touch. All they need to do is either reword 9-8 and/or add a case play that involves a throw-in first touched in the backcourt.

We are talking about different things then. When I said that "nothing has changed", I mean that nothing in the way that we call backcourt violations has changed. I realize there is a contradiction, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

Basically that is my point. Now that they have to fix the wording for backcourt violations they can also add similar wording to the 10-second backcourt rule to make it clear player control must occur at some point before a 10-second violation can occur.

10-second backcourt violations, backcourt violations, and 3-second violations all need to have player control established at some point prior to the violation, so keep the wording consistent.

Sometimes I think the Fed did this just to watch us all gnash our teeth.

Not so. The change to player control during a throw-in was welcome. The editorial changes to other rules to accommodate that change were inept and clumsy, not malicious.

I was being facetious. It seems to happen almost every year in at least one sport so I figured they just enjoyed doing it. :)

Confused ???
 

We can call a three second violation during an interrupted dribble in the frontcourt. No player control there.

It Isn't ???
 

A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

Really?

It's PC vs. TC Billy.

That wasn't the point of BNR's post...

Urgent, Please Help ...
 

NFHS: 9-8:

Now you guys have got me totally confused, which, by the way, really isn't much of an accomplishment.

I have always started my ten second count when an offensive player gets control of the ball in the backcourt. I did not start my count if a player simply touched the inbounds pass without gaining player control.

I did, however, continue my ten second count when an offensive player, in the backcourt, initially gained player control (see above paragraph) and then that player, or another offensive player, lost player control, but with his team still in team control.

What am I getting wrong here? Have I actually been doing this wrong for over thirty years?

They're So Impressionable ...
 

Didn't want to confuse the rookies.

What if the pass from the FC is tipped by B and goes to the BC? Is there PC in the BC? Should you start your count?

Ah, I missed your invisible smilie. :p

Anybody Got Any Aspirin ???
 

OK. I'll play. Typical situation.

No. A player is not holding or dribbling a live ball, inbounds.

Yes. At some point player control and team control, was established, and even though player control has been lost, team control still exists. Same reason that I continue my ten second count, in the case of a "normal" backcourt throwin, after a teammate "controls" the inbounds pass, and then fumbles away the basketball.

This is starting to freak me out. Yeah. It's freaking me out, man. Now I'm really confused. I don't know if I'm coming, or going, anymore? I don't know it I'm right, or if I'm wrong. I think that I'm right, and that I know what I'm doing in this situation, but the caveat, "Always listen to bob", is freaking me out here.

So, to summarize, BadNews Ref said:
You agree that you start a 10-second count in the most recent play, and that there's no "PC in the BC" when you do.

So, why the confusion?

Didn't Want To Confuse The Rookies ...
 

OK. I think that I get it now. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

My earlier post was to clear up some possible confusion, among rookies, regarding when to start a ten second count in a normal backcourt throwin situation, i.e., don't start the count until player control has been established, don't start the count just because the ball has been touched by an offensive player inbounds.

In doing so, I confused myself. I hate it when that happens.

You are back on track. :) To my original point I was referring to situations subsequent a throw-in. There is continuous team control on a tipped throw-in however we will not start a 10-second count, have a backcourt violation, or have 3-seconds until PC has been established.