Back Court or Not??

[geoff.mayfield]

While in A1's back court, A1 passes the ball to A2 in the front court (A2 is in the front court). The ball bounces off A2's back (no player control by A2) into the back court where A1 regains possession. Back court violation or not?

Apply HS rules if NCAA are different

[JugglingReferee]

So your question then is "Does a FC player need to obtain player control in order for the ball to obtain FC status?"

What do you think the answer is?

[APG]

Requirements for backcourt violation:

Team control (and player control when coming from a throw-in)
Ball achieves frontcourt status
Team in control is the last to touch the ball before the ball goes into the backcourt
Team in control is the first to touch after the ball has gone into the backcourt.

What say you?

[Sco53]

4-4-2 " A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball or the player is touching the backcourt."

[OKREF]

Backcourt

[geoff.mayfield]

Yes, the existence of player control in the FC is the question

Rule 9.9.1 (NFHS) (the others shouldn't apply)
"A player shall not be the first to touch the 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."

APG's parenthetical indicated player control is perhaps limited to a throw. But this language is not supported by this rule, by other rules perhaps?

I think its a back court violation but can't reconcile that belief against the Player and Team control requirement in the rule.

[geoff.mayfield]

Yes, the existence of player control in the FC is the question

Rule 9.9.1 (NFHS) (the others shouldn't apply)
"A player shall not be the first to touch the 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."

APG's parenthetical indicated player control is perhaps limited to a throw. But this language is not supported by this rule, by other rules perhaps?

I think its a back court violation but can't reconcile that belief against the Player and Team control requirement in the rule.

[APG]

The rule is poorly written. NFHS came out last year in an official PowerPoint, last year, stating that all backcourt plays (as well as 3/10 second counts) are handled exactly as they were prior.

And here's the casebook 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 frontcourt: (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 back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second count.

[OKREF]

9.9.1 case book

A1 is dribbling in his/her back court and throws a pass to the front court. While standing in A's frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's back court. A2 recovers in the back court.

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 the front court and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play, and A is entitled to a new 10 second count.

[geoff.mayfield]

I've read the case book and seen that play in the case book. Other than poorly written rules, how is the absence of PC by A2 justified in the presence of 9.9.1 indicating the required presence of PC?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by geoff.mayfield

I've read the case book and seen that play in the case book. Other than poorly written rules, how is the absence of PC by A2 justified in the presence of 9.9.1 indicating the required presence of PC?

Last year, the NFHS essentially told us to ignore the written rule and enforce it the way they want us to enforce it. Pisses me off, to be honest.

[APG]

Originally Posted by geoff.mayfield

I've read the case book and seen that play in the case book. Other than poorly written rules, how is the absence of PC by A2 justified in the presence of 9.9.1 indicating the required presence of PC?

Because the player control portion was a bit added by NFHS to try and reconcile the fact that they didn't want backcourt violations to be called on throw-ins thrown into the backcourt...not from regular play when player control has already been initially established at some point.

[icallfouls]

A2's touching of the ball then causing the ball to go into BC results in a BC violation by A2. They were the last to touch the ball in the FC before ball going into BC.

Does not require PC, only TC

[jeremy341a]

Is is correct that on throw in plays that their must be player control in the front court but on all others there does not need to be player control in the front court?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Is is correct that on throw in plays that their must be player control in the front court but on all others there does not need to be player control in the front court?

That seems right (but also seems like a confusing way to phrase it, to me)