backcourt or not?

[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?

[APG]

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

[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 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?

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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?

[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?)

[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?