![]() |
|
|
|
||||
|
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?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
||||
|
One more, for kicks.
A1 dribbling, standing on the division line. B1 guarding. B1 reaches down and slaps the ball (dribble over, 3 points no longer applies) and knocks it a) into A1's leg or b) up in the air towards the BC and A2 catches it before it bounces, standing in the BC. Violations?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
|
For the opening play, I don't think I would call this a violation. The last to touch the ball was team B. I don't think this is a ball in flight is it?
Had a play similar last night. A2 is in front court, B2, tips the ball, and the ball deflects off the foot of A2 then bounces one time in the back court, where A2 picks up the ball. Called a back court. |
|
|||
|
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. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
The violation is not for causing the ball to gain backcourt status. That's not what 9-9 says.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
Last edited by Camron Rust; Sat Dec 21, 2013 at 01:51pm. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's not, so it isn't. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| backcourt or not? | jeremy341a | Basketball | 26 | Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:37am |
| Backcourt? | stiffler3492 | Basketball | 26 | Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:14pm |
| backcourt or no backcourt | cmathews | Basketball | 6 | Fri Feb 18, 2005 05:06pm |
| Backcourt or not? | johnyd | Basketball | 5 | Sun Jan 23, 2005 01:03pm |
| Backcourt or not? | moref | Basketball | 15 | Wed Jan 05, 2005 04:12pm |