backcourt or not?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Seen a play last night A1 in the backcourt passes to A2 in the front court. The ball bounces off the legs of A2 due to a low bounce pass. The ball then returns to player A3 in the backcourt. Is this a violation?

9.9.1c seems to say it is a violation. However 9-9-1 states there must be player and team control in the front court. Which one is correct?

By rule, this is not a backcourt violation because there was no PC in the front court.

By case and intention, this is a back court violation as A had team control in the front court and was last to touch in the front court and first to touch in the back court.

This is one of the (many) errors introduced with TC during a throw-in.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

By rule, this is not a backcourt violation because there was no PC in the front court.

By case and intention, this is a back court violation as A had team control in the front court and was last to touch in the front court and first to touch in the back court.

This is one of the (many) errors introduced with TC during a throw-in.

There is a case play that predates the change to the team control on a throw in that says if the A1 throws the ball with backspin into the front court causing the ball to obtain front court status and then the ball goes back into the back court and touches the player again, this is back court violation.

[jeremy341a]

How can I justify the call when the Coach states rule 9-9-1 and says there must be player control in the frontcourt?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

How can I justify the call when the Coach states rule 9-9-1 and says there must be player control in the frontcourt?

Team control is what is required and the ball has to have front court status. If you are passing the ball around in the front court, there is no player control but there is team control. If A2 fumbles the pass and then the ball goes into the back court and A2 retrieves it, are you going to call a violation? I hope so.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

How can I justify the call when the Coach states rule 9-9-1 and says there must be player control in the frontcourt?

Originally Posted by rwest

Team control is what is required and the ball has to have front court status. If you are passing the ball around in the front court, there is no player control but there is team control. If A2 fumbles the pass and then the ball goes into the back court and A2 retrieves it, are you going to call a violation? I hope so.

jeremy is saying how can he justify it if there was NEVER player control in the front court, which the rule does says is needed.

In your scenario PC has been established in the FC.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

jeremy is saying how can he justify it if there was NEVER player control in the front court, which the rule does says is needed.

In your scenario PC has been established in the FC.

That is what I'm saying.

[APG]

Except player control is required at some point when coming from a throw-in...which is the secenario that in which that portion of the rule is trying to address (albeit poorly). I'd just tell the coach that player control in the frontcourt is required if the play is coming from a throw-in.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by APG

Except player control is required at some point when coming from a throw-in...which is the secenario that in which that portion of the rule is trying to address (albeit poorly). I'd just tell the coach that player control in the frontcourt is required if the play is coming from a throw-in.

It doesn't say on a throw-in, just after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt. Is it possible that it is just written poorly and that is why there is a casebook play that is the opposite?

[APG]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

It doesn't say on a throw-in, just after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt. Is it possible that it is just written poorly and that is why there is a casebook play that is the opposite?

I know it doesn't say that, but that's the situation the poorly written verbiage is trying to address...otherwise, throwing a bounce pass that hits in the frontcourt, then goes into the backcourt, and then is retrieved by Team A would be a backcourt violation. It's also trying to address the situation where A muffs the throw-in in the frontcourt into the backcourt.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

It doesn't say on a throw-in, just after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt. Is it possible that it is just written poorly and that is why there is a casebook play that is the opposite?

It's incredibly poorly written.

When they added team control during a throw-in they told us that the backcourt violation hadn't changed at all. But the rules for it changed. Our association continues to call the backcourt rule as it was, which is what the casebook play reflects.

It will be a problem with a coach who knows the rule and tries to press the issue. The only recourse you have is to point him to the casebook.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

How can I justify the call when the Coach states rule 9-9-1 and says there must be player control in the frontcourt?

9-9-2 is more to the OP. It states that a team with control in the backcourt can not cause the ball to get front court status (doesn't have to be in player control) and then cause it to go into the back court and be the first to touch it.

I paraphrased the rule, but that is the gist of it.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by rwest

9-9-2 is more to the OP. It states that a team with control in the backcourt can not cause the ball to get front court status (doesn't have to be in player control) and then cause it to go into the back court and be the first to touch it.

I paraphrased the rule, but that is the gist of it.

Except of course that it's not at all. 9-9-2 deals with a ball that goes frontcourt to backcourt "without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt." Since in the OP has the ball touching A2, 9-9-2 has not been violated. The violation has to come from 9-9-1 and that rule has been screwed up by the committee.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

How can I justify the call when the Coach states rule 9-9-1 and says there must be player control in the frontcourt?

You have a few options for that rare occasion when a coach actually knows the wording of the rule.

1. Silence.
2. "Coach, I'm using the 2010-2011 rule book for BC calls."
3. "Coach, the rule committee admitted they screwed this up, but they didn't fix it. They issued statements saying all BC situations were to be ruled as they were before they added TC to the throw-in."
4. "Because I said so."

Honestly, it's the same explanation I normally give them when they start complaining that B touched the ball once (prior to A2 touching it in the FC) before it went into the BC (you know the play). Nothing.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by rwest

There is a case play that predates the change to the team control on a throw in that says if the A1 throws the ball with backspin into the front court causing the ball to obtain front court status and then the ball goes back into the back court and touches the player again, this is back court violation.

This just goes to show how screwed up they have the backcourt rule, but by rule it is a violation to throw the ball such that it obtains frontcourt status and then returns untouched in the frontcourt with A touching first in the backcourt (9-9-2).

However, if the ball is touched by A in the frontcourt without player control being established there is no violation as 9-9-1 has not been violated because there was no player control and 9-9-2 was not violated as the ball was not untouched in the frontcourt.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

There is a case play that predates the change to the team control on a throw in that says if the A1 throws the ball with backspin into the front court causing the ball to obtain front court status and then the ball goes back into the back court and touches the player again, this is back court violation.

That seems wrong.

So... by this case play if A1 releases the ball from the backcourt, it lands in the front court, and comes back to A1 in the backcourt, it's a violation...

But by the 3 points rule, if A1 is dribbling near the halfcourt line, is standing backcourt and releases the ball (to dribble) , it lands in the front court, and returns to A1's hands (as dribbles are apt to do) while A1 is still backcourt, you DON'T have a violation.

What's the difference (and what rule makes it different?)