Over and back violation?
 

Team A has a throw-in at the baseline of their front court. The ball is thrown and hits the hand of an A player in their front court and goes into the back court. The ball is controlled by an A player in his back court. Violation?

Does the recent rule change on team control during a throw-in affect this?

Who You Gonna Call ???
 

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6230/6...473e048e_m.jpg

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not a backcourt violations.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt

No.

No.

When passed on a throw-in the play is legal. Howeve when passed from bc to fc and batted back it is a backcourt violation according to the case book. Does anyone know why they made the rules such that is is not ruled the same in both instances.

It's Not You, It's Team Control ...
 

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

There's TC in both situations, Billy.

The difference is PC Inbounds.

This should be drilled into the head of every new official! Plain, simple, and hopefully unable to screw up...

Like this?
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0pQMdZ32nSI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That play should NOT have been BC.

We've been trying ever since the interwebs was invented.

Pretty basic stuff on the video. I am always surprised when that stuff is called a violation.

Peace

Stupid Backcourt Rule ...
 

No use in stating where throw-in originated, it's irrelevant to any ruling.

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.

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.

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 :D

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

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.

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

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

When the NFHS changed the TC rule, they changed this part of the bc rule in a stated attempt to ensure the bc rule wasn't effectively changed. They put out a memo essentially stating they wanted bc called as if the rules hadn't changed.

1. Not everyone got that powerpoint memo.

2. New officials start every year that don't get old memos.

3. They said they were going to fix it this year. They failed.

This is not the only place where the casebook adds things which are not in the rulebook.

Thus Jeremy, why I say the rule depends on how long you've been officiating. ;)

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.

The only thing that has changed is the team control only applies to an offensive foul during a throw in. At one time, free throws would have been shot. If the offense fouls during a throw in, it is a TC foul and no free throws shot.

Example: During a throw in, A1 sets an illegal screen on B1. Previously if B was in the bonus they would have shot free throws. Now they do not. It is penalized as a TC foul.

I see and you can see my confusion as a first year official.

We all predicted it.

Everyone? I thought I could fool atleast one of you
I knew how it was called but was confused when i read the rule. It seemed strange that everyone kept saying yeah it says that but that isn't what they want. Now that someone mentioned a memo it makes much more sense.

perhaps just more poor wording
 

Pg 1. Of the NFHS preseason guide talks about team-control rule change refined and underneath is list a few plays. Play #2 says A1 has the ball for a throw-in at the division line. A2, who is standing in the frontcourt, tips the ball to the backcourt. A3 retrieves the ball in the backcourt before anyone else touches it.
Ruling #2 Legal play. There is no backcourt violation since player control had not yet been established in Team A's frontcourt.

I think we all agree this is legal but it seems strange to mee that they use the phrase no player control in Team A's frontcourt. They did not say not player control inbounds. This seems to be more in alignment with the rulebook which says must have player control in the frontcourt. Probably just poor wording again but i found it interesting.

I dont see how this is poor wording... The rule specifically state to have backcourt there must be team and player control in the front court. Look in Rule 4 by definition front court in inbounds....

From my perspective Rule 4 must be the best understood rule of all

A1 is in the BC. He throws a pass to A2 who is in the FC. A2 is not looking and the ball bounces off of A2 and rebounds to the BC. A1 recovers the ball. Ruling?

I hope you have a violation, but there was no PC in the FC.

No violation per the rule, but violation as that is what the NFHS wants per their "memo." Anyone got a copy of that memo?

I meant that we all predicted that after a year (maybe more), more and more officials would read the rule and get confused. There were a lot who did that the first year.

It's all good, I didn't take it as an insult. The everyone comment was just my poor attempt at humor.

Backcourt violation

9-9-1-C.

This play is straight from the case book.