Backcourt Violation Question

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I'm confused, aren't these last two posts contractic each other? Does TC in the FC need to exist before a BCV can occur?

I'm not sure, but I think you're confusing player control and team control.

PC is required to establish TC; but not to maintain it. While A1's pass to A2 is in the air, TC continues.

TC must be in place.
The ball must gain FC status (it did this in your play when B2 touched it).
The team in control must be the last to touch it before it goes to the BC (A2's bat).
The team in control must be the first to touch it after it goes to the BC (A2's touch after the bat).

[Adam]

Think of this play:

A1 in the BC, passes towards A2 in the FC.
A3 was cutting in between (in the FC) and it strikes his leg and bounces back to A1 (in the BC).

The play is, for all relevant purposes, identical to yours.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not sure, but I think you're confusing player control and team control.
PC is required to establish TC; but not to maintain it. While A1's pass to A2 is in the air, TC continues.

TC must be in place.
The ball must gain FC status (it did this in your play when B2 touched it).
The team in control must be the last to touch it before it goes to the BC (A2's bat).
The team in control must be the first to touch it after it goes to the BC (A2's touch after the bat).

This is correct, perfect, and thanks.

It's nice to know I got the call right, but unfortunate that I didn't get it right for 100% the right reasons.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

This is correct, perfect, and thanks.

It's nice to know I got the call right, but unfortunate that I didn't get it right for 100% the right reasons.

Another point to consider is that the 3 points rule for dribblers only applies to a dribbler going from BC to FC; not the other way around. So if you deemed A2's actions to be a dribble, he did establish PC in the FC just prior to the ball bouncing in the BC.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Another point to consider is that the 3 points rule for dribblers only applies to a dribbler going from BC to FC; not the other way around. So if you deemed A2's actions to be a dribble, he did establish PC in the FC just prior to the ball bouncing in the BC.

Correct, which was my thinking on why it was a BCV, although it looks like now I was over thinking it. The coaches argument stemmed from judgment on what constitues control. I judged the player to have control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it. The HC argued that control couldn't exist until after that second dribble at which time the ball had BC status.

As I understand the rule now is that once team control is established anywhere on the court, the ball achieves front court status, and is touched last in the FC by the offensive team, and first in the BC by the offensive team, that it is a BCV.

Am I learning anything?

[La Rikardo]

So for a ball to have front-court status, it simply needs to touch a player in the front court, right?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

So for a ball to have front-court status, it simply needs to touch a player in the front court, right?

Or the floor. 4-4-1

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

So for a ball to have front-court status, it simply needs to touch a player in the front court, right?

It must either touch the court or a player in fc to have status.

[Jesse James]

Still with the hijacked-thread-inbound-pass play--Dribbler's first bounce hits the division line in the OP.

Since a dribbler needs two feet and the ball in frontcourt for frontcourt status, then how is it a backcourt violation?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

It must either touch the court or a player in fc to have status.

Or an official or the backboard/rim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

So for a ball to have front-court status, it simply needs to touch a player in the front court, right?

Read 4-Ball Location to get your answer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Correct, which was my thinking on why it was a BCV, although it looks like now I was over thinking it. The coaches argument stemmed from judgment on what constitues control. I judged the player to have control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it. The HC argued that control couldn't exist until after that second dribble at which time the ball had BC status.

As I understand the rule now is that once team control is established anywhere on the court, the ball achieves front court status, and is touched last in the FC by the offensive team, and first in the BC by the offensive team, that it is a BCV.

Am I learning anything?

Yes, I would only add that due to the changes in TC on a throw in, PC needs to be established inbounds prior to or concurrent with the FC location of the ball.

As for the coach's argument. The dribble starts when the ball is batted, pushed, or thrown to the floor. We don't always know if it's a dribble or pass until the player touches it again, but that doesn't change when the dribble started (and thus PC began).

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Correct, which was my thinking on why it was a BCV, although it looks like now I was over thinking it. The coaches argument stemmed from judgment on what constitues control. I judged the player to have control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it. The HC argued that control couldn't exist until after that second dribble at which time the ball had BC status.

As I understand the rule now is that once team control is established anywhere on the court, the ball achieves front court status, and is touched last in the FC by the offensive team, and first in the BC by the offensive team, that it is a BCV.

Am I learning anything?

"control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it"

When would you have allowed A1 or a teammate/coach to request a time-out and honor that request? That is when team-control existed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

"control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it"

When would you have allowed A1 or a teammate/coach to request a time-out and honor that request? That is when team-control existed.

I think you mean player control.

[SamIAm]

"control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it"

When would you have allowed A1 or a teammate/coach to request a time-out and honor that request? That is when team-control existed.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think you mean player control.

I didn't. But they would occurr at the same instance in the OP and the sitch below.

If no team control exists for team A, the first player on team A to establish player control also establishes team control.

(Not trying to lecture, but putting my understanding out there to be corrected if needed)