Backcourt Violation Question
 

Great forum, I'm glad I found it. I had a back court violation situation come up a few weeks ago and wanted to get your take on it.

A1 is in backcourt being pressured by B1. A1 attempts to pass the ball into the front court where it is first deflected by B2 and a scramble ensues. During the scramble A2 is moving toward half court from the top of the key and gains control of the ball near midcourt with one hand by pushing it to the floor and dribbling away. During that first dribble the ball literally landed on the mid court stripe and the player I ruled back court as the ball and A2 had front court status, and A2 gained player (and team control for A) on the first dribble.

A's HC argued that control couldn't possibly exist on the first "dribble" and therefore it shouldn't have been a back court. I viewed A2 as having control of the ball beginning with the very first tap to the floor.

Thoughs?

A2 doesn't need to gain player control for the violation.

Team control is already in place. B2's touch establishes FC status. A2's initial touch is still in the FC. When his dribble hits the BC, it's a violation.

Am I mistaken in thinking that for a BCV to occur there must first be team control in the FC?

The four criteria for a backcourt violation (NCAA and NFHS):

1. Team control (and initial player control when coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves a front court status
3. Team in control is last to touch the ball before the ball achieves a backcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after the ball achieves a backcourt status.

A2 didn't need to establish player control. As soon as A2 touched the ball, he gave the ball frontcourt status. We still have team control because TC continues during passing activity. A2 then was the first to touched the ball after it gained a backcourt status (by virtue of batting the ball to the division line), and was the first to touch the ball after it achieved a backcourt status.

There must be team control in the FC. There doesn't need to be player control in the FC, however.

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 had to re-read this a few times. I fail to see when the ball goes into the frontcourt. Does A1 actually pass the ball into the FC, or as you stated, he attempted to, but failed?

A1 (in the BC) attempts to pass the ball to A2 (in the FC). The ball is deflected by B2 (in the FC) giving the ball FC status. The ball is now loose in the FC when A3 gains control using a dribble which strikes the mid court line.

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).

In that case, what Snagwells said :D

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.

No. All that matters is that there is team control, it doesn't matter which side of the court.

No. Yes.

If there's TC in the BC, and the ball reaches the FC, then there's "TC in the FC". This can happen even if no one touches the ball in the FC. It can also happen if a player touches (but does not control) the ball in the FC.

There does NOT need to be PC in the FC to have a BC violation, or to establish "TC in the FC."

Some like to combine the 4 criteria (listed by APG in post 4, I think) into 3 (with the first being "TC in the FC"). Your confusion shows why I think it's better to separate them.

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.

Hijacking the thread:

Same exact play as the OP, except the initial pass is an inbound pass.

Since it's important in this instance, when exactly does player control take place?

Still bcv if a2 dribbled the ball and not just trying to gather the ball. Throw-in exception applies only to the first person touching the ball.

See the definition of control in 4-12-1

Even if the throwin hadn't been tipped, it would still be a violation.

A2's dribble established PC in the FC. He then took it into the BC with his dribble (the 3 pt rule only applies going from BC to FC). Violation.

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?

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

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).

I did not say a dribble in this case would not trigger a bcv.

Or the floor. 4-4-1

Sorry, that was the impression I got from your reference to the throw in exception.
I was just pointing out that the throw in exception wouldn't apply anyway.

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

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?

The ball was touched by B2 who was in the FC prior to A2 dribbling it, giving it FC status.

Read 4-Ball Location to get your answer.

Three points only applies to a dribbler going from BC to FC, not the other direction.

Duffman,
Your confusion could be from the 2011-12 rule 9-9-1. Ive attached the below that was posted by Nevadaref in August 2011. The case book play DOES NOT match the new wording.


NEW NFHS backcourt violation rule The NFHS has changed the definition of a backcourt violation in the 2011-12 rules book. Unfortunately, this change has NOT been announced as either a rule change or an editorial change! Previous wording (2010-11 season):Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in 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.Art. 2... While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.Art. 3... A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) 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.

NEW 2011-12 text:Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a 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.Art. 2... While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.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.Obviously the change is an attempt to mesh the backcourt rule with the new rule for team control during a throw-in. However, I believe that the NFHS didn't do this properly and actually made a significant change in way the backcourt rule works. This is more than just a wording change for editorial purposes in my opinion. Here is the play which I believe has been altered. A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He throws a pass to A2 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt. The ball caroms off A2's knee and returns to the backcourt where A1 retrieves it. According to article 1 from 2010-11 this would be a backcourt violation. However, since there was no player control in the frontcourt by A2, only team control by team A, according to the new wording for article 1 of 2011-12 there would not be a violation.Note that this play is not covered by article 2 either as a player does touch the ball in the frontcourt. The problem is that the player in the frontcourt never gains control and the new wording clearly requires both player and team control in the frontcourt.
I have put the changes to the text from the previous season in red.

Are you sure about that?

I debated this when I typed it, and figured someone would question it. I'm not positive, but under the principal that a dribbler is OOB when he steps on the OOB line even if it's not at the same moment he's in contact with the ball, I think so. I see it as continuous control, just like the OOB play.

That said, you really don't know it's a dribble until he touches it again, so in practice, it won't be called until he touches it after that bounce.

One huge difference in the out of bounds play and the backcourt play.

"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.

And back to square one. This reads as if you must have player control in the front court before you can have a BCV.

You're now going the same direction as I'm thinking.

The backcourt rule has no dependence on player control. It is not a violation to cause the ball to be in the backcourt at any time (with or without player control). It only depends on being the first to touch the ball after it has gone to the backcourt (assuming the other criteria have already been met). That would be when the dribble returned to the hand.

On a related situation....what if a PLAYER stepped on the division line between dribbles, then, resumes contact only with the FC before dribbling again. Does the ball ever gain backcourt status?

Refer to the definition of ball location (Rule 4-4). Rule 9-3-1 NOTE makes it a violation for a dribbler to step OOB but I don't see anywhere that says the concept applies to the division line. Does it? By the letter of the rules, it seems that the ball is only in the backcourt when it is actually in contact the backcourt directly or with a player who currently has backcourt status by either being in contact with the backcourt or being airborne having jumped from the backcourt).

By practice and common sense, I feel the OOB NOTE probably should apply to the division line as well, but I don't think the rules, as written, necessarily support that.

This is an interesting thought. I guess IMO there is a difference between when control begins, and when it can be first ascertained. For example...

A loose ball that A1 dives for, puts two hands on it, and as he’s sliding he calls time out. I'm reluctant to grant the request until he stops sliding, and I can determine that he's maintained control throughout. Just because he has two hands on the ball doesn't mean he has control of it. That said once the time out has been granted where did he gain control, when he first put two hands on it, halfway through, not until the end?
In my judgment, based on the entire sequence of events leading up to and after initial contact with ball (in reality only a second) the player established control with the first dribble and maintained it the entire time, thus player control began with the first touch.

Don't over this think. The NFHS has done a poor job of writing the rule but has told us (through official PowerPoint presentations) that we are to handle throw-ins the exact same way as before with regards to backcourt violations, 10 second counts and three second counts. And we judge regular backcourt violation, 3 second and 10 second violation plays the exact same.

All you need to concern yourself with a backcourt violation is:

1. Team control (and initial player control when coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves a front court status
3. Team in control is last to touch the ball before the ball achieves a backcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after the ball achieves a backcourt status.

Or an official or the backboard/rim.

There's nothing magical about sliding and ending the slide. If he has both hands on it and the ball isn't rolling, then he is holding the ball.

In your OP, A1 had player control and team A had team control when A1 had the ball in the BC.

The ball gained FC status.

A2 bats the ball and it gains BC status.

If you deemed the bat a dribble, it's a BC violation.

If you judged the first touch was not a dribble (no player control), then it's a BC violation if A2 next touches the ball again.

Hmmmm so you are saying that the only debate is when the BCV occurred... on the first dribble when the ball hit the half court stripe or when the players foot made contact with the BC. I agree... now.

Which are already considered part of the floor :P

Unless he is holding the ball, when/if his feet hit the backcourt is of no consequence. It's a violation when he touches the ball (first) after it went into the bc.

"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 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)

The reason I questioned your phrase-ology is b/c you're discussing granting a time-out. When the ball is live but the clock is not running then merely having team control is sufficient to be granted a time-out. But when the ball is live and the clock in running then player control is needed.

BBR, Please see Camron's post, #38. It can't be a bcv when the ball hits the bc, from a bat, or a perceived "start of a dribble", because the bat occurs before the ball touches the backcourt, and a violation occurs for being the first to touch the ball, after the ball gains backcourt status. IOW, the bat that causes the ball to touch the backcourt, is only that. It's the touch, when the ball bounces up, and again, touches the hand of the player, which occurs after the ball gains backcourt status, that constitutes a bcv.

That, and in the OP, team control had already been established in the BC.

Huh? The only examples of "live ball, clock not running" I can think of are on a throw-in (no TC), FT (TC, but also PC), or jump ball (no TC).

A TO can be granted when there's PC or the ball is "at the disposal" of the team. TC does not enter into it (other than PC also causes TC).

Maybe I'm missing something.

Disposal now equals TC as well. Maybe that's what he meant.

No there is nothing magical about sliding, or dribbling either for that matter. My point is I don't think PC can be determined by looking at a still snap shot that encompases only that exact moment in time. PC is determined by a sequence of events that when put together give you a full picture. In the situation I had it was not possible to determin control until after the second and subsequent dribbles occured, however once they did it was easy to say she gained control with the first dribble.

The same is true if she would have caugth the ball with two hands. A player can momentarily secure or stop the momentum of the ball with two hands on either side it. What follows will determin if the player has control. The player can either continue to demonstrate control over the ball by raising it above thier heads and holding it away from the defense, or the player can have the ball immediately squirt out of their hands.

In the former you have PC, in the latter you dont, but both would look identical if you froze action when they first placed two hands on the opposit sides of the ball. It's the action prior to, and after the instant of that first touch that determins PC.

Snaqs, you are wise beyond your years. :D That's what I meant. No PC when the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in but there is TC.

Even though I forgot to include there is one exception to "TC, live ball, clock not running" for which we can't grant a time-out, which is after the throw-in has been released but before it has been legally touched.

Which is why your method of trying to discern between when to use PC and when to use TC is confusing (to me).

Just go by the PC or disposal, all the time.

You take that back; I'm no Yankee fan regardless of what you've been told.

Or that.

But my original statement had context in that I responding to someone who was talking about TC in regards to granting a time-out.

Sorry but I don't agree with that interpretation. Player control exists so when a player in his FC steps on the line, it's a violation whether he's touching the ball or not. If he dribbles the ball on the line, it's no different. I have a BC violation.

You're welcome to another interpretation if you like.

I disagree.

Based on your description, one dribble would never be a dribble.

Further, just because a player controls the ball and then loses control doesn't mean they never controlled it.

Perhaps the same concept is intended to apply at the division line. However, the only rule close to that is one regarding OOB. It doesn't mention the division line or imply that it should be used elsewhere.

So if A1 is in the front court and throws the ball into the backcourt you would call a BC violation as soon as it hits the backcourt? If the ball hits the line but the player never touches it again it can't be a BC violation.

Not true. I have on many occasions called a player for a double dribble after they have gained control of a lose ball using a dribble, caught it with two hands, and attempted to dribble again. It's all about judgement, and I feel in some cases a play needs to develop before you can ascertain player control.

Do you truly believe a player that passes the ball into the BC has player control?

If so, you really need to re-read Rule 4, Definitions.

A dribble is not a pass. That's in Rule 4, too. :)

First, you don't have to have PC to have a BC violation. Team control is sufficient.

Second, muff it, lose control, fumble, pass, or just stop dribbling while running toward backcourt and then letting the ball continue into the backcourt with out touching it are all the same thing.

I am just saying someone on the offense would have to touch it after it touches the mid court line or in the backcourt before a BC violation should be called.

You should probably consider all of them a loose ball per the definition in Rule 4. ;)

He didn't say "throw", he said "bat" as part of a dribble.

This is the same as the old illegal dribble question.

A1 has ended his dribble, and then pushes the ball to the floor again. Is it a violation as soon as he pushes it down, or when it hits his hand?

Or the OOB call:
A1 dribbling along the sideline. After he pushes a dribble down, he steps on the line. Is it a violation as soon as he steps on the line, or when he touches the ball again thus estalishing the continuation of his dribble?

On that one, we have a specific "Note" in the rule book that says it is OOB when a dribbler steps OOB whether they're touching the ball or not. We don't have a similar rule regarding the division line. Does the concept apply? By letter of the rule, no. By spirit, probably.