backcourt or not?
 

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?

Backcourt violation...player control is only needed if coming from a throw-in.

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.

Violation
 

There was team control and the ball obtained front court status. There doesn't have to be team control per se in the front court. At least not based on case plays. There is a case play where the player throws the ball into the front court with back spin and the ball returns to the player in the back court. Back Court Violation.

Team Control with the ball obtaining front court status is what is required. Once that occurs if the offense is that last to touch in front court and first to touch in back court it is a violation.

Actually
 

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.

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

Player control is not required
 

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.

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.

That is what I'm saying.

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?

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.

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?)

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?

Criteria for backcourt violation:

1. Team control (and player control established at some point if coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves frontcourt status
3. Team in control is the last to touch the ball when it has a frontcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch after the ball gains a backcourt status

In your first situation, all four criteria are met. In your second, the ball doesn't achieve a frontcourt status per the 3 points rule for a dribbler.

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.

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?

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! :D

How About 9-9-2
 

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.

How is the 2nd criteria met in the 1st situation? Both situations are identical... A1 is backcourt, ball leaves A1's hands, hits the ground in the frontcourt, and then returns to A1's hands.

4- ball location.

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.

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.

Back court

9.9.1 case book, is this exact play.

A1 is dribbling in the backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (a) A2 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 the frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the backcourt

OP already recognized and brought up case book play 9.9.1 Situation C