Over and back violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not the same. Team control in one, no team control (be careful with the new rule) with the other.

There's TC in both situations, Billy.

The difference is PC Inbounds.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's TC in both situations, Billy. The difference is PC Inbounds.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's TC in both situations, Billy.

The difference is PC Inbounds.

Is there really? Or is it just that a foul that occurs during a throwin is considered a team control foul (much like a foul by an airborne shooter is a PC foul even though there is no PC)? From the way they've explained everything about what they want called, the latter is really the way they want it. If viewed that way, everything lines up nicely.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is there really? Or is it just that a foul that occurs during a throwin is considered a team control foul (much like a foul by an airborne shooter is a PC foul even though there is no PC)? From the way they've explained everything about what they want called, the latter is really the way they want it. If viewed that way, everything lines up nicely.

That would have been the way to write the rule, but that's not the way the rule was written. There is TC and PC now during a throw-in.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That would have been the way to write the rule, but that's not the way the rule was written. There is TC and PC now during a throw-in.

But, that is exactly how they have described the case plays in interpretations surrounding the rule.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's TC in both situations, Billy.

The difference is PC Inbounds.

True but in neither one is there PC in the front court which is what the rulebook says is required although their is a casebook play that says it isn't. My point is why not make it one way or the other? Either require player control to be established in the fc or not but rule it that way in both cases.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

True but in neither one is there PC in the front court which is what the rulebook says is required although their is a casebook play that says it isn't. My point is why not make it one way or the other? Either require player control to be established in the fc or not but rule it that way in both cases.

It is that way.

4 requirements:

1) PC inbounds
2) Ball in FC
3) A last to touch before ball goes to BC
4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC.

Note that 1 and 2 are separate items -- PC in the FC is not required.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It is that way.

4 requirements:

1) PC inbounds
2) Ball in FC
3) A last to touch before ball goes to BC
4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC.

Note that 1 and 2 are separate items -- PC in the FC is not required.

Has the rule been recently rewrote? I see these 4 listed on here many times yet the rule says pc in the fc is required. Has the rule been altered to lead to this wording as I know there is casebook play that says it is not required?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Has the rule been recently rewrote? I see these 4 listed on here many times yet the rule says pc in the fc is required. Has the rule been altered to lead to this wording as I know there is casebook play that says it is not required?

The rule is different depending how long you've been officiating

[maven]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Has the rule been recently rewrote? I see these 4 listed on here many times yet the rule says pc in the fc is required. Has the rule been altered to lead to this wording as I know there is casebook play that says it is not required?

The rule has indeed been rewritten. Here's the 2010 version of 9-9-1:

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in 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.

And the 2012 version:

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.

We should amend the "four requirements" to three:

1. PC in FC
2. A last to touch in FC
3. A first to touch in BC

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by maven

The rule has indeed been rewritten. Here's the 2010 version of 9-9-1:

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in 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.

And the 2012 version:

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.

We should amend the "four requirements" to three:

1. PC in FC
2. A last to touch in FC
3. A first to touch in BC

That won't work because a pass from BC that touches a player in the FC and rebounds to the BC is a violation but there was never PC in the FC.

I agree with you (and always have) that the best thing to do is just reword the defintion of TC foul so that you can have a TC foul without TC, just like you can have a PC foul without PC.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That won't work because a pass from BC that touches a player in the FC and rebounds to the BC is a violation but there was never PC in the FC.
.

Under the current wording of the rule this is not backcourt. However the casebook says it is.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by maven

The rule has indeed been rewritten. Here's the 2010 version of 9-9-1:

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in 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.

And the 2012 version:

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.

We should amend the "four requirements" to three:

1. PC in FC
2. A last to touch in FC
3. A first to touch in BC

The 3 points is how I read the current rule but the casebook seems to not agree. Is the casebook play old?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

The 3 points is how I read the current rule but the casebook seems to not agree. Is the casebook play old?

They have told us more than one time to rule other plays as they were before team control change regardless of the apparent wording of the rule.