backcourt or not?

[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.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

Good points, I wonder why they don't make the rule consistent and say there must be player control established in the front court on all plays throw-in or not?

[fullor30]

Confession time....


Boys Varsity a few weeks ago...A1 near division line fires pass to A2 a few feet in frontcourt, pass hits A2 in back of head, ricochets back to A1 in backcourt (about 6 feet away). A1 passes to A3 who hits jumper. Whole scenario happened in 3-4 seconds. I'm trail and it froze me as seeing ball bounce off head was a first. By the time I digested it, called nothing. C was was right there and also froze. No reaction from crowd, B coach casually asks C as he's running by,"wasn't that backcourt"? "Yes" and we play on.

Expect the unexpected.

Added to list of that won't happen again on my part.

[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.

[jeremy341a]

Seems to me that it would be easier if they applied the rule the same for all plays throw-ins or not.

Backcourt throw in by A1 goes the past half court and hits A2 in hands and returns to A3 in backcourt then no violaton as there had not been player control. However same play but A1 throws the ball from inbounds in the backcourt now we have a violation bc A1 had player control although it was in the backcourt. Correct?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

Good thing is either way you call it you can either say look in the rule book or look in the casebook. I'm covered either way!

[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.