Exception or The Rule? (video)
 

What say you on this play?

<iframe width="960" height="720" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GbQFbS9nUlw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It looks to me like the player first touched the ball with the right foot down, then put the left foot down in the FC and then stepped with the right foot in the BC. Violation.

Violation. He had at least one foot down in FC when he gained PC then jumped to BC.

Player (and team) control established with his left foot in the front court, right foot in the air. He then steps in back court with right foot. BC Violation.

Great video example. I wonder how many HS officials would catch that.

Thanks for posting.

Looks like a clear violation to me as well for the reason described up top.

Peace

Easy call if you're paying attention.

Apparently, they're enforcing the over and back rule but not the uniform rules. ;)

It is AAU, I have yet to ever care about those rules. That is a NF or state organizational thing. No one cares in AAU what kids wear as long as you can see numbers on the front or the back.

Peace

I'm not so sure this one is a violation. The camera cut makes it a little harder to tell too.

It appears like he may have jumped/hopped just before obtaining control of the ball. It was a small hop sure but both feet were off the ground momentarily. Then he lands on (edit) ONE foot in the FC then steps into the BC with the other foot. If so, that would be legal.

I'm with Camron on this. I have him getting both hands on the ball while both feet are in the air, landing - with possession - with the left foot in FC then the right foot comes down in BC. You can see "one up, one down" in terms of his feet at the 0:16 mark.


Remember, assuming he jumped then landed on the right foot after catching the ball this would be an exception under NFHS 9-9-3 (hence the title of the thread) since it's a throw-in. Also, TC already exists once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower (NFHS 4-12-2d).

A Corollary Point to the Topic
 

I know it's not -- the clock at the table seems to indicate 4:11 or thereabouts -- but pretend this is an AP throw-in at the beginning of a quarter.
Given that situation, note where the official puts the ball at the thrower's disposal.
(Forget for now the obvious fact that he hands and does not bounce the ball to the thrower. No sense hijacking this thread twice in one post. :mad:)
In that scenerio, something I've recently noticed is this: when the official does not give the ball for a designated spot/AP throw-in at the division line, when it's just done casually "somewhere around there", it invites more plays like this than if it were given at the properly prescribed location. Especially when it's administered toward the thrower's frontcourt and defensive pressure ensues.
Debatable, perhaps. But a study of close backcourt violation calls and no-calls on video this summer bears this out.

Now, we return to our regularly scheduled debate regarding whether it was a backcourt violation or not. :)

It would have been better for the official to bounce in this case. There were players that could have caused the ball to be thrown even deeper into the BC. Otherwise I would have no problem with handing the thrower the ball.

Peace

Maybe We Shouldn't Call The Mythbusters ???
 

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his or her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

Tough call, but I may not have a backcourt violation here.

Nice video JetMetFan. Thanks.

I cant tell from the video if he catches the ball while airborne or not, because if he is taking a hop right before catching the ball, it is a very small one. Therefore, I will go with the calling official (and give him the benefit of doubt that he knows the rule and exception) since he had a much better look as to whether or not the offensive player was airborne on the catch.

This is marginal in my opinion. I can't tell for sure from the video, but I think the kid's airborne when he catches it.