Backcourt?

[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.

[Camron Rust]

By rule, it is not a backcourt violation because the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status was B1.

By SITUATION 11 (I think that was the #) from a couple years ago, it was ruled to be a violation because, somehow before and after are the same time.

I calling it according to the rule book...no violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Somehow before and after are the same time.

It's a warp in the space time continuum. Easily explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

[SNIPERBBB]

By rule it is a violation:

ART. 1

A player shall not be the first to touch the 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.


A2 is the first to touch the ball after having been in the front court. If A2 let the ball bounce once in the BC it would not of been a violation.

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

By rule it is a violation:

ART. 1

A player shall not be the first to touch the 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.

Ball, however, did not "go into the backcourt". It still had frontcourt status. Had the violator allowed the ball to touch in the backcourt it would have been no violation.
This precise question was on our state rules test this fall. Others prevailed upon me to arrive at this understanding.
Rule 9-9 needs to be torn down and totally rewritten from scratch. Though understood by most seasoned officials, the verbiage is far more convoluted than it needs to be. The "team control during throw-in" curve ball followed the law of unintended consequences to give us what it is. Yuk.

[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.

[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".

[golfdesigner]

Unless I'm missing something here, I going to agree with the original post, violation. Yes the ball was tipped by B, bounced in the frontcourt, was in the air over the backcourt (4-4-3) but has not yet touched the floor in the backcourt to gain backcourt status, therefore ball has frontcourt status when A3 catches the ball while touching the backcourt (4-35-1) causing the ball to now have backcourt status. therefore last to touch in frontcourt A-3, first to touch in backcourt A-3, violation.

4-4 ART. 3 . . . A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. (in this case ball has frontcourt status)

4-4 ART. 4 . . . A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location. (in this case backcourt when A-3 touches ball)

4-35 ART. 1 . . . The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out of bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt. (in this case A-3 has backcourt status)
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line.

The last to touch and first to touch happens at the same time.

Had A3 allowed ball to bounce in the backcourt giving the ball backcourt status, then there would be no violation.

I've been told to look at it as if the player were standing out of bounds. If A-3 was out of bounds and B-1 deflected a pass in flight which then hit A-3 who was standing out of bounds, you would award the ball to B, by saying A-3 was the last to touch the ball inbounds and the one that caused it to go out of bounds. So in the backcourt violation question, A-3 was the one that caused the ball to go into the backcourt and was the first to touch the ball in the backcourt.

[Adam]

The rule does not say anything about who caused it to go into the BC.

The rule says "last to touch before" and "first to touch after". Both "before" and "after" refer to the ball going into the back court. One event cannot be both before and after the same separate event.

I will not be calling this a violation.

[Adam]

Consider this situation for those who think this should be called a violation.

A1 has the ball in the BC and throws a pass towards A2 in the FC. B1 jumps from a FC position and interrupts the pass, but is only able to tap it back towards the BC where A1 catches it.

I have to ask those of you who consider the OP a violation, are you calling this one a violation too?

[SNIPERBBB]

Thats the same thing if A1 FC just throws it to BC A2. Tough luck but still BC.

You can probably get away with not calling it until someone calls you on the carpet for it.

[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.