Quick Back court ruling/thoughts/answer

[Toren]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

No violation...FED has told us to adjudicate backcourt violation plays as we always have...even with the poor wording.

Here's a similar play:

2011-2012 NFHS Basketball Interpretations

SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

I think this play is similar but the biggest part that is missing is the division line is erased for the person who first touches it only. So I'm not so positive that the original OP is legal. Of course, I don't have my book in front of me now.

[tref]

No violation on the OP play.

"You're absolutely right, coach... but there's an exception on throw-ins. I'll email you the rule along with the 3 seconds rule that you requested in the 1stQ."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Toren

I think this play is similar but the biggest part that is missing is the division line is erased for the person who first touches it only. So I'm not so positive that the original OP is legal. Of course, I don't have my book in front of me now.

The bolded part of your statement is most definitely incorrect.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The bolded part of your statement is most definitely incorrect.

9.9.1 Situation D and E

The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Toren

9.9.1 Situation D and E

The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball.

The throw-in exception applies to airborne players catching the ball which thus ends the throw-in AND establishes Player Control inbounds. The exception allows said airborne player to land in the BC though he had FC status when he initially established PC.

A tip does not constitute Player Control.

[Clark Kent]

Ok....So I read through all your posts and I agree. Obviously we need player control and team control in order to have a bc violation correct?

Now according to 4-12-1 it says "A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball"

And 6-1-2b says "the ball becomes live on a throw in when it is at the disposal of the thower"

So why isn't there player control as well as team control on this play? Why is it not back court? Rule references please

[APG]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Ok....So I read through all your posts and I agree. Obviously we need player control and team control in order to have a bc violation correct?

Now according to 4-12-1 it says "A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball"

And 6-1-2b says "the ball becomes live on a throw in when it is at the disposal of the thower"

So why isn't there player control as well as team control on this play? Why is it not back court? Rule references please

The player throwing the ball isn't considered in the frontcourt...the frontcourt is the inbound portion of the court.

Rule 4
SECTION 13 Court Areas
ART. 1 . . . A team’s frontcourt consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.

There must be player and team control in the frontcourt...meaning inbounds. When the player touches the ball inbounds in the frontcourt, there's team control in the frontcourt, but there's no player control in the frontcourt with the tip.

[Clark Kent]

ahhh.....thank you!

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The bolded part of your statement is most definitely incorrect.

I think (actually I hope) he is mistaking the following play for the OP!

9.9.1 SITUATION D:

Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's throw-in is deflected by B1; A2 jumps from Team A's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. A2 gains player and team control in the air after having left the floor from Team A's frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt status. As soon as A2 lands in the backcourt, he/she has committed a backcourt violation. The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-3)

If the defense tips the throw-in pass in the f/c then yes, the throw-in has ended & the ball has f/c status & the exception is off.

If the offense tips the throw-in pass, the throw-in has ended & even though t/c exists there is no player control yet & the exception is on.

9-9-3

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.

[tref]

Ah I'm too late

Maybe Toren will bring JR back on this one...

[APG]

Originally Posted by Toren

I think this play is similar but the biggest part that is missing is the division line is erased for the person who first touches it only. So I'm not so positive that the original OP is legal. Of course, I don't have my book in front of me now.

But look at the rationale given...there must be team AND player control in the frontcourt...there's team control, but no player control in the frontcourt...thus no violation.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

But look at the rationale given...there must be team AND player control in the frontcourt...there's team control, but no player control in the frontcourt...thus no violation.

I see what you're saying APG...here it comes, but, look at the following case book play:
9.9.1 Situation C
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourts: (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 backcourt.

Isn't this Ruling in this play completely opposite of the wording for the definition of a backcourt violation? The definition says we need player and team control in the frontcourt, and then this ruling we don't have that, we only have the last to touch first to touch ruling.

If last to touch, first to touch ruling is enforced in this play, it appears it can be extended to the OP as well.

[Adam]

The key is to rule the play based on the old rules until the committee figures out the wording.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by Toren

I see what you're saying APG...here it comes, but, look at the following case book play:
9.9.1 Situation C
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourts: (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 backcourt.

Isn't this Ruling in this play completely opposite of the wording for the definition of a backcourt violation? The definition says we need player and team control in the frontcourt, and then this ruling we don't have that, we only have the last to touch first to touch ruling.

If last to touch, first to touch ruling is enforced in this play, it appears it can be extended to the OP as well.

This is why we have to pardon the rule writers for botching the wording in this rule. I said earlier that team control is not established in the FC so it isn't a BC violation. I think a better way to think of it is that PC can't be obtained OOB.
But of course the only reason why we know that the OP is not a BC is because the NFHS said the rule change only affects foul shooting in bonus.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Toren

I see what you're saying APG...here it comes, but, look at the following case book play:
9.9.1 Situation C
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourts: (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 backcourt.

Isn't this Ruling in this play completely opposite of the wording for the definition of a backcourt violation? The definition says we need player and team control in the frontcourt, and then this ruling we don't have that, we only have the last to touch first to touch ruling.

If last to touch, first to touch ruling is enforced in this play, it appears it can be extended to the OP as well.

APG already posted the interp that applies directly to the OP. It trumphs "last to touch/first to touch". We discussed all last summer how the FED botched re-writing the TC rule in regards to throw-ins. Prior to last season the OP would not have been a BC violation. The FED put out correspondence stating BC violation rules were not affected by the new TC throw-in rules. Throw-in's and jump ball's have backcourt exceptions so you cannot extend 9.9.1 Sit C to them.