Over & Back on Throw In
 

Player A is inbounding on the sideline and throws the ball into the backcourt, player B jumps from the front court, catches the ball and lands in the back court. Is this over & back because he caught the ball with front court status and landed in the back court?

No

You'll find it in rule 9.

Who You Gonna Call ???
 

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

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.

Rule 9-9-3

And unless you work in an IAABO area/state...
 

I'd stay away from the phrase "over and back," and try to just use rule book terminology when discussing this type of play/possible violation. :)

Why? This one accurately describes the situation....unlike over-the-back. I don't think I know of a single official that says anything other than over-and-back.

Huh. Maybe this is a just me thing, then. I think it's an antiquated term that sounds very junior-high-official. It's not always an accurate term for what that violation is, it's not listed in the rule or case books to my knowledge (NFHS or NCAA), and the only place I know it exists is in the...wait for it...(sarcasm on) my favorite book of all time: the IAABO Officials' Manual, and only in the signal chart.

I personally say "backcourt" or "backcourt violation" while making the signal.

Oh Oh Oh (Arnold Horshack, 1975) ...
 

Me. My call is always, "Backcourt", and has been for thirty-three years.

It is a perfectly accurate description of the play in all cases I can think of...you have to get the ball over the division line and then go back to have the violation. It isn't necessarily verbose enough to tell the full story but neither is "backcourt".

As for what is listed in the books, that doesn't stop people from reporting illegal use of hands as "hits", at least around here. I don't and think it sounds silly, but it is common, particularly in the college crowd. And in a lot if cases, "hits" is not actually correct.

I say "back court".

Sounds like it is regional.

It is in the NFHS signal chart too...so I believe that makes it official.

And I challenge you to create a "backcourt" violation where over-and-back is not accurate.

I could probably, if I tried, come up with more reasons why backcourt is less accurate or less complete than over and back versus the reverse.

It's in the rule book.

"Hit" is in the NCAA-W manual, fwiw. "HitS" sounds plain stupid to me, personally.

Examples of backcourt violations that don't fit "over and back":

1) A thrown-in ball that is player-controlled in the frontcourt that then obtains backcourt status (last touched by A, first touched by A) never necessarily went "over the division line" before going "back."

2) A jump ball that ends which then immediately results in a backcourt violation hasn't necessarily crossed the division line at all.

A quick forum search will reveal
 

that this has been discussed multiple times before, and I don't remember there being a clear consensus.

Pleas look at the signal chart, which is in the rules book, Number 22. The caption under the picture.....

"Over and Back"

You mean being in the frontcourt is not over the line but is behind the line?????

You're going to have to explain that one.

It is "being" over the line, not "going" over the line.

Same thing. I have no idea how the ball can gain FC status (which is necessary to have a violation) without it ever being "over" the line by nature of contact with the floor or in contact with a player who is in the FC (noting the definition of ball location).

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

I suppose that's another way of looking at it, but again, not wholly accurate in some situations, such as the violation immediately following a jump ball.

An airborne player can give the ball status.

So what? Nothing said it had to cross the line. The problem isn't going over and back. It's being over and then going back.

How it got over is the part that's irrelevant.

That's fine, jar, but there are still ways there can be a backcourt violation without the ball ever "being" over the division line on jump balls and throw-ins. I've alluded to one of them above.

1. Traveling
2. Double Dribble
3. Carrying
4. Stepping out of bounds
5. Excessive swinging of the arms and elbow (without contact)

I found a whole bunch of them...:D

The ball's location in space with regard to the division line is never relevant.

I agree. I believe that semantically/technically, others are suggesting otherwise.

Backcourt violation for me.

I have always said "backcourt". And while I have an intense dislike for an official referring to a PCF or TCF in NFHS and NCAA Rules as an "offensive" foul, I do not get to hung when an official uses the term "over and back" to describe a "backcourt violation".

That said I encourage officials both young and old (like me) to use correct (rules book terminology) terminology when talking with other officials and especially with players and coaches (and fans and "talking heads") because it is a way of educating them about the rules of the game.

MTD, Sr.

NCAA-W Manual
 

And I just noticed that in my favorite of manuals, it's listed in the signal chart as "over and back," too. Huh.

And, by rule, where is that player? They're in the FC having jumped from the FC so when the ball touches that player, the ball also has FC status and has made it over to FC. "Over" is not a physical position relative to the plane of the division line but a status. Try again.

Wow. Okay. No, it hasn't made it "over to the FC;" it has obtained FC status. Those are not mutually inclusive. One is a physical location, one is a status applied without regard to the ball's physical location. I don't really know that this is worth debating anymore, but now you're suggesting that "over" = not physically over the division line, but instead that "over" = having obtained FC status, which is not quite what you were stating earlier in the thread:
But again, I think we've about exhausted this one.

I don't think it matters.

Colloquially, when the ball gains FC status, it has gone "over."
When it regains BC status, it has gone "back." Works for me (I call it "backcourt", but find the discussion about it amusing).

Let me ask this: How is the ball status defined? How is ball location defined?

1) By the parameters of live/dead.
2) By the status (FC/BC and IB/OB) of what/who is touching it or it is being touched by.

I'm not sure where you're going...

Or where it was last touched. A ball's location is defined by the location of who is touching it. So, while the ball may be in the space above one court (or OOB), it's actual location (by rule) may be someplace else entirely.

My point exactly.