Backcourt?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by refiator

I posted this not because I have seen it, but it is an interesting case play.
Let's layer this play and break it down:

What is the status of the ball when A-1 passes? Answer: frontcourt

What is the status of the ball when B-1 deflects the ball? Answer: frontcourt

What is the status of the ball when the deflected ball bounces in the frontcourt? Answer: frontcourt

The ball does not have backcourt status until when? Answer: The ball must either touch the floor in the backcourt or be touched by a player or ref with backcourt status or touch the backboard in the backcourt.

When does the ball have backcourt status? Answer: When it was touched by A3.

If the ball doesn't have backcourt status until it is touched by A3, then A3 caused the backcourt status.

If A3 allowed the ball to first touch the floor before catching the ball, then it would be B1 that caused the ball to have backcourt status. Then it would be legal for A3 to touch the ball in the backcourt because A3 did not cause the ball to have backcourt status.

Essentially A3 caused the ball to have backcourt status. Therefore it is a backcourt violation on A3.

If A3 had been standing out of bounds then we would deem that A3 caused the ball to go out of bounds and not B1.

So, if we layer this play and look at the status of the ball and who caused the status of the ball then we must rule this play as a backcourt violation.

However, I agree also that I doubt anyone would give a no-call a second thought.

So what? Causing the ball to have BC status isn't a violation. Otherwise, in a case where A1 throw the ball to the BC it would be a violation the moment it hit the floor without anyone touching it.

Read the rule again. It only a violation if A is both the team that last touched it BEFORE it has BC status and the team that first touches AFTER is has BC status. When A touches the ball in the backcourt, giving it backcourt status, they will still be touching it after the initial contact thus they are the first to touch. However, to see if it is a violation, you must back up in time to see who was the last one to touch it before they touched it.

From a prior year book:

RULE 9 SECTION 9 BACKCOURT
ART. 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.

[Camron Rust]

So, it looks like they have, once again, fundamentally changed a rule without calling it a rule change and without telling anyone.


The old rule:

ART. 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.

The new rule:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, or if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

The "or" changes everything.

Now, as the rule is written, with the "or" term, it now means:
1. That it is a violation simply for A to ever be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, even if B knocked it there and even if it bounced first.
2. That it is a violation simply for A to ever be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt regardless of who touches in the backcourt....it is a violation as soon as it touches.

Did they really mean to change like that? I doubt it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by refiator

If the ball doesn't have backcourt status until it is touched by A3, then A3 caused the backcourt status.

If "causing" was a violation, then it would be a violation if A1 passed the ball into the BC as soon as the ball hit the floor.

It's not, so it isn't.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, it looks like they have, once again, fundamentally changed a rule without calling it a rule change and without telling anyone. Did they really mean to change like that? I doubt it.

As our old buddy, or old foe, used to say, "Stupid monkeys".

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by refiator

A-1 in the frontcourt passes to A-2; B-1 deflects the ball toward the backcourt; the ball bounces once in the frontcourt and into the air in the backcourt; A-3 goes into the backcourt to retrieve the ball and catches it before it hits the floor in the backcourt (A-3 has backcourt status). Is this a backcourt violation? Why or why not?
I say this is a backcourt violation. We must look at the status of the ball and who caused the ultimate status of ball similar to an out-of-bounds play.

BC if A3 jumps from the front court and touches the ball then lands in backcourt. No BC in the OP if A3 touches BC first then ball which still has F c status. This would be one of the plays to use the "new" tip signal.