Backcourt ruling?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mo-Money

My understanding is that the ball is still in front court status since it did not touch the floor. Once A1 catches the ball, he is now the first and last person to touch it therefore, its backcourt.

Originally Posted by deecee

Who was the last to touch the ball in the FC? The defense. A player cannot be FC and BC at the same time.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

You just have to ask yourself two questions...

1. Who, the offense or defense, was the last to touch the ball in the FC?

2. Who, the offense or defense, was the first to touch the ball in the BC?

If the answer to both of those questions is the offense, then you have yourself a violation. If not... play on.

All of you are making the same error.

The rule is not who is the last to touch the ball IN the frontcourt but who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status (not when it gained backcourt status).

Likewise, it is about who is the first to touch the ball AFTER it gains backcourt status, not who is the first to touch the ball IN the backcourt.

Much of the time, it it the same thing, but not always....and the difference matters. Plus, the difference is why the above play is not a violation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All of you are making the same error.

The rule is not who is the last to touch the ball IN the frontcourt but who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status (not when it gained backcourt status).

Likewise, it is about who is the first to touch the ball AFTER it gains backcourt status, not who is the first to touch the ball IN the backcourt.

Much of the time, it it the same thing, but not always....and the difference matters. Plus, the difference is why the above play is not a violation.

Could you explain a play in which the wording changes the result of the play? I ask because I have a violation in this scenario as well, but understand that my wording for having a violation is incorrect.

And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Could you explain a play in which the wording changes the result of the play? I ask because I have a violation in this scenario as well, but understand that my wording for having a violation is incorrect.

And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening.

A1, in the frontcourt, near the division line, throws a bounce pass across the court such that the ball bounces in the backcourt very near the division line and then bounces in the frontcourt. A2, in the frontcourt, also near the division line, catches the ball. Neither player was ever in the backcourt, the ball was in the frontcourt at the time each player touched it. Yet, it is a violation.

Reverse the positions such that the players are both in the backcourt and the pass bounces in the frontcourt. Also a violation even though neither player was ever in the frontcourt.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A1, in the frontcourt, near the division line, throws a bounce pass across the court such that the ball bounces in the backcourt very near the division line and then bounces in the frontcourt. A2, in the frontcourt, also near the division line, catches the ball. Neither player was ever in the backcourt, the ball was in the frontcourt at the time each player touched it. Yet, it is a violation.

Case play reference please?

[Mo-Money]

Based on everyone's feedback I guess everyone agree that it's not a back court violation then.

So here is another scenario...A1 is dribbling toward its front court and just before A1 reach mid-court he attempt to pass the ball to A2 who is in the front court. Unfortunately, the ball does not make it to A2 because B1 bats the ball back to A1 in the back court. During the passing and batting, the ball never touches the floor. Soon as B1 touch the ball would the ball status be consider having front court status now?

Would this be a back court violation once A1 catch the batted ball from B1?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mo-Money

Based on everyone's feedback I guess everyone agree that it's not a back court violation then.

So here is another scenario...A1 is dribbling toward its front court and just before A1 reach mid-court he attempt to pass the ball to A2 who is in the front court. Unfortunately, the ball does not make it to A2 because B1 bats the ball back to A1 in the back court. During the passing and batting, the ball never touches the floor. Soon as B1 touch the ball would the ball status be consider having front court status now?

Would this be a back court violation once A1 catch the batted ball from B1?

FC status. Yes (which means the 10-count is over).

Violation, No, since B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backourt status....and the 10-count would start again.

[PG_Ref]

By rule, the original post is a backcourt violation.

2007-2008 rules interp ...
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)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

By rule, the original post is a backcourt violation.

2007-2008 rules interp ...
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)

By rule? No, it's not. By interp, it is. The interp actually flies against the rule, though (as opposed to working to clarify an otherwise ambiguous rule).

The rule requirements for a backcourt violation include being the last to touch the ball "before" it went into the BC and then being the first to touch the ball after it went into the BC. The same event cannot be both before and after a separate event.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

By rule, the original post is a backcourt violation.

By rule, it is not a violation. A single touch can't be the last touch before it goes into the backcourt and the first touch after it goes into the backcourt.

By interpretation (that is contrary to the rule), it could be.

Me, I'm going with the rule. It has been unchanged for a very long time.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

By rule, it is not a violation. A single touch can't be the last touch before it goes into the backcourt and the first touch after it goes into the backcourt.

By interpretation (that is contrary to the rule), it could be.

Me, I'm going with the rule. It has been unchanged for a very long time.

Whether we agree/disagree with the wording of the rule vs the interpretation, the federation has decided the play should be ruled a violation. We all have seen where their wording can sometimes cause confusion instead of clarification ... like when they changed the "team control on a throw-in" rule. And the wording still has a hole or two in it.

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

FC status. Yes (which means the 10-count is over).

Violation, No, since B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backourt status....and the 10-count would start again.

I have a violation. The ball never gained backcourt status. It was caught in the backcourt before it touced the ground (court). In essence, A took the ball into the backcourt.

Look at it this way, if B1 had tapped the ball away from A1 toward the sideline and A1 ran OOB and caught the ball while standing OOB would you let play continue?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered

I have a violation. The ball never gained backcourt status. It was caught in the backcourt before it touced the ground (court). In essence, A took the ball into the backcourt.

Look at it this way, if B1 had tapped the ball away from A1 toward the sideline and A1 ran OOB and caught the ball while standing OOB would you let play continue?

The rules are not the same. It is a violation to cause the ball to gain OOB status. It is not a violation to cause the ball to gain BC status.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Could you explain a play in which the wording changes the result of the play? I ask because I have a violation in this scenario as well, but understand that my wording for having a violation is incorrect.

And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening.

What Camron said, plus the play from the case book where A1 in the BC throws the ball that hits the official in the FC. The ball caroms to the BC where A1 recovers. Violation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A1, in the frontcourt, near the division line, throws a bounce pass across the court such that the ball bounces in the backcourt very near the division line and then bounces in the frontcourt. A2, in the frontcourt, also near the division line, catches the ball. Neither player was ever in the backcourt, the ball was in the frontcourt at the time each player touched it. Yet, it is a violation.

Reverse the positions such that the players are both in the backcourt and the pass bounces in the frontcourt. Also a violation even though neither player was ever in the frontcourt.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What Camron said, plus the play from the case book where A1 in the BC throws the ball that hits the official in the FC. The ball caroms to the BC where A1 recovers. Violation.

Thanks.