backcourt violation

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

99/100, just_another_ref is right, but sometimes the ballhandler will intentionally hold that leg up in the air after landing on the first one (don't know "why" he'd do it, but they will). If that's the case, I'd consider that gaining control in the frontcourt, and as such if he then takes that foot and makes a backward step, it's over and back.

There is no time limit on the second foot landing.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no time limit on the second foot landing.

KMB has support in the rule book on this...

9-3-3
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.

It appears it's a matter of what one considers "normal." If the player lands on one leg then stands like a flamingo for 5-6 seconds, that may not be considered "normal." On the flip side, they may be doing that because they think they'll be called for the violation if they put their other foot on the floor in the backcourt.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no time limit on the second foot landing.

There isn't only if you consider standing on one foot normal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no time limit on the second foot landing.

Eight minutes.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Eight minutes.

Ha! Awesome!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Eight minutes.

Which, theoretically, could be the limit an offensive player could be in the lane.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Which, theoretically, could be the limit an offensive player could be in the lane.

Yeah. I get a lot of coaches yelling, "Eight minutes", to me. I have to explain to them that the offensive player in the lane gets a new eight minute count every time there is as shot attempt.

[just another ref]

If the player does land on the first foot and there is a looooooooooong interval before the second foot, the argument could be made for a violation. But, barring a definition of what is normal, the opposite could also apply. Never seen it. Hopefully never will.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Barring a definition of what is normal.

Normal: The opposite of anything that Mark Padgett does.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no time limit on the second foot landing.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There isn't only if you consider standing on one foot normal.

Exactly. Most of these are normal landings. I've never actually seen it, so I wouldn't say it happens even as often as "sometimes," but kmb is right. If the delay is long enough to consider the player to be standing on one foot rather than still in the process of landing (completely subjective judgment call), then it's a violation.

It would have to be obvious to everyone, however, that the player was standing on one foot, before I'd call it.