NFHS Backcourt

[Stat-Man]

Saw this play yesterday (MS Girls).

A1 dribbles and stops with one foot in front court and one foot in back court.

A1 passes to A2 in back court.

Trail calls an emphatic backcourt violation.

I was under the impression ball -and- both feet had to be in the front court for the pass to A2 to be a violation.

[bob jenkins]

Both you and the official are wrong (as described).

You: The "three points rule" applies only to a dribble from the BC to the FC. Since the dribble had ended, that rule doesn't apply.

Official: If a player is touching the BC and the FC, the player is in the BC. So, a pass to another player in the BC would be legal. That said, if A1 lifted the foot that was in the BC, A1 is now in the FC, and a pass to the BC would be illegal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Saw this play yesterday (MS Girls).

A1 dribbles and stops with one foot in front court and one foot in back court.

A1 passes to A2 in back court.

Trail calls an emphatic backcourt violation.

I was under the impression ball -and- both feet had to be in the front court for the pass to A2 to be a violation.

Assuming A1's foot remained in contact with the backcourt until the ball was released, you would be correct (that it was not a violation).

However, if A1 (who was holding the ball) were to lift that backcourt foot, they would instantly gain frontcourt status. Such a lifted foot gains frontcourt status not by touching in the frontcourt but because the other foot is in the frontcourt and the lifted foot is not touching the backcourt.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Assuming A1's foot remained in contact with the backcourt until the ball was released, you would be correct (that it was not a violation).

However, if A1 (who was holding the ball) were to lift that backcourt foot, they would instantly gain frontcourt status. Such a lifted foot gains frontcourt status not by touching in the frontcourt but because the other foot is in the frontcourt and the lifted foot is not touching the backcourt.

Camron:

When I checked the case book, I found Case 9.9.1 which you've described above.

Originally Posted by Bob Jenkins

Both you and the official are wrong (as described).

Thanks for the explanation/clarification, Bob.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That said, if A1 lifted the foot that was in the BC, A1 is now in the FC, and a pass to the BC would be illegal.

And it would also be a violation if A1 put that foot back down in the BC.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Thanks for the explanation/clarification, Bob.

Always listen to bob.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And it would also be a violation if A1 put that foot back down in the BC.

Just to add another slight twist...A establishes FC and under heavy pressure from B starts to dribble away, whereby A's right foot touches the division line or is in the back court but his other foot and the ball remains in FC?

Backcourt Violation??

[APG]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Just to add another slight twist...A establishes FC and under heavy pressure from B starts to dribble away, whereby A's right foot touches the division line or is in the back court but his other foot and the ball remains in FC?

Backcourt Violation??

Criteria for backcourt violation:

Team control (and player control established at some point if coming from a throw-in)
Ball achieves a front court position
Team in control is last to touch the ball when the ball had a frontcourt status
Team in control is the first to touch the ball after it's achieved a backcourt status.

With that, do you have a violation? Reading up on player position may help with your question.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by APG

Criteria for backcourt violation:

Team control (and player control established at some point if coming from a throw-in)
Ball achieves a front court position
Team in control is last to touch the ball when the ball had a frontcourt status
Team in control is the first to touch the ball after it's achieved a backcourt status.

With that, do you have a violation? Reading up on player position may help with your question.

I say Yes a Violation has occured...While it takes 2 feet and the ball for a dribbler to establish FC..it only takes either the ball or one foot or both feet to be in the BC for a violation after establishing FC status.

Now, Did I get the call right?

[APG]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

I say Yes a Violation has occured...While it takes 2 feet and the ball for a dribbler to establish FC..it only takes either the ball or one foot or both feet to be in the BC for a violation after establishing FC status.

Now, Did I get the call right?

Correct

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by APG

Correct

Thanks much appreciated

[tref]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

I say Yes a Violation has occured...While it takes 2 feet and the ball for a dribbler to establish FC..it only takes either the ball or one foot or both feet to be in the BC for a violation after establishing FC status.

Now, Did I get the call right?

Same sitch, instead of the foot touching the division line, the ball is dribbled on the line?

[Amesman]

same call

[Triad zebra]

Another spin... A1 is now in FC and B1 bats ball into the air toward A's BC. A1 goes back court and catches it prior to the ball touching the court... What now? Do we go with the rule or the Interpretation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

Another spin... A1 is now in FC and B1 bats ball into the air toward A's BC. A1 goes back court and catches it prior to the ball touching the court... What now? Do we go with the rule or the Interpretation?

I'm going to, in THIS case, judge that B1 established control during that brief bat.

So there is no conflict.

Even if I didn't do that, I'm going with the rule because, with the conflict, the interpretation doesn't even make common sense....from the point of view of whether it is "right" for that to be a violation.