Throw in BC?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The ball can have FC status without team control by either team.

Agree. It definitely has FC status by merely being touched in the FC or by even touching the floor in the FC. That is always true regardless of team control and other rules.

[ballgame99]

Had a great example of what we are all talking about here this weekend. A1 dribbling in BC, just before half court line she fumbles the ball forward into the FC, A2 tips it from FC into BC where A1 recovers it. Back court call was made, A coach goes nuts, calls both officials idiots and gets a T.

Then on ensuing T, team B had a bench player come in to shoot the technical FTs, and the A coach really lost it.

I was not on this crew, I was watching, but still found it humerous.

The crew got both of these calls correct didn't they? From my understanding they did, but thought I would check.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Had a great example of what we are all talking about here this weekend. A1 dribbling in BC, just before half court line she fumbles the ball forward into the FC, A2 tips it from FC into BC where A1 recovers it. Back court call was made, A coach goes nuts, calls both officials idiots and gets a T.

Then on ensuing T, team B had a bench player come in to shoot the technical FTs, and the A coach really lost it.

I was not on this crew, I was watching, but still found it humerous.

The crew got both of these calls correct didn't they? From my understanding they did, but thought I would check.

Sounds like it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree. It definitely has FC status by merely being touched in the FC or by even touching the floor in the FC. That is always true regardless of team control and other rules.

I disagree. Without team control, there is no FC or BC. The terms are defined on the basis of which team is in control of the ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I disagree. Without team control, there is no FC or BC. The terms are defined on the basis of which team is in control of the ball.

A shoots and misses. Rebound is tapped out, and bounces several times before being grabbed out of the air by A1 who leapt from his FC and lands in his BC. Is this a violation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I disagree. Without team control, there is no FC or BC. The terms are defined on the basis of which team is in control of the ball.

I believe both exist at all times relative to the direction the teams are going without regard to team control. But, FC/BC status only has relevance at certain times.

Teams A's frontcourt is still team A's frontcourt even when team B has the ball....it just happens to be team B's backcourt too.

Many of the case plays support this view as well when they mention a defensive player jumping from their FC or BC and catching the ball in the air. This implies that FC/BC exist for the team not in control as well.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A shoots and misses. Rebound is tapped out, and bounces several times before being grabbed out of the air by A1 who leapt from his FC and lands in his BC. Is this a violation?

Yes. The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

What if we change "frontcourt status" to "frontcourt location"? Does that make the ruling easier to digest?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes. The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

I know it is. This was the whole point, that this is an example of the ball having frontcourt status with no team control by either side.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I know it is. This was the whole point, that this is an example of the ball having frontcourt status with no team control by either side.

And it would be a violation if B1 jumped from his frontcourt, caught the ball in midair, then landed in his backcourt. What was the status of the ball before B1 touched it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And it would be a violation if B1 jumped from his frontcourt, caught the ball in midair, then landed in his backcourt. What was the status of the ball before B1 touched it?

Before he touched it, backcourt status. When he catches it, now there is team control in the frontcourt. When he lands, now it has backcourt status again.

violation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I know it is. This was the whole point, that this is an example of the ball having frontcourt status with no team control by either side.

Yep. As soon as A1 catches the ball, FC status is obtained at the same time the respective FC and BC become defined.

Now, I recognize the distinction I'm making doesn't really come with a difference. For me, however, it conceptually makes sense when understanding the BC rule.

To Camron's point, the case plays referenced could easily be explained as using the terms for reference in a play that can't be viewed in a case book.