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)

[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.

[Adam]

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?

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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

Not even close to the same thing.

[OKREF]

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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refiator

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.

The violation is not for causing the ball to gain backcourt status. That's not what 9-9 says.

[BryanV21]

It's not a matter of which player had FC or BC status, or whether the ball had FC or BC status, it's the status of said player and the ball.

The touch by B1 made it so the status of the ball, relative to the status of team A, was up in the air. Remember, BC or FC status is relative to that of the ball and both of the player's feet that is in control of the ball. The first touch by a member of Team A, after the touch by B1, was from A3 while she had gained BC status... hence, no violation.

Sidenote: I can't stop thinking of how to word this, so I can't stop editing. Sorry.