Over & Back on Throw In

[Gargil]

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?

[SE Minnestoa Re]

No

[Adam]

You'll find it in rule 9.

[BillyMac]

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.

[APG]

Rule 9-9-3

[HawkeyeCubP]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think I know of a single official that says anything other than over-and-back.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I say "back court".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I say "back court".

Sounds like it is regional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

It's in the rule book.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

"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.