Throw in BC?
 

I had a strange play tonight, have no idea if I blew it or not. I have different opinions from local refs.

Throw in in FC by team A. B1 jumps over A2 and touches the ball but can not secure the ball, he slaps it and hits A2 in the front of the jersey and rolls into BC. A2 runs into BC and gets the ball. I have BC.

At half time, partner says since no one had control, there was no BC, I understand that, but B1 touched the ball and knocked it off A2 into the BC. I have 2 people in FC touching the ball, I have FC status for the ball. looking at case book 9.9.1D is the closest thing I have.

Thoughts?

No violation. On a throw in, TC only exists for the purposes of determining if bonus free throws should be shot. PC needs to be established in bounds before FC status can be established.

If A2 had caught the ball and brought it into the backcourt then it would have been a violation (i.e., the scenario presented in casebook play 9.9.1D).

While that is correct, I think it is a bad rule.

I think the backcourt airborne player exception should apply up to and including the first person that catches a ball, not just touches the ball, that is not in control of their team whether it is form a throwin, steal, jump ball, or shot attempt.

Your partner is correct. When the NFHS extended the definition of team control a couple of seasons ago to include the throw-in, it did so with poor wording and this caused some immediate questions. In response to one of those questions the NFHS issued a clarification that the new team control rule didn't change how backcourt, 3-sec, 5-sec, and ten-sec violations were to be called. It only impacted fouls by the throwing team.

Too Late in the Season to Be Discussing This, But..
 

Whereas the last sentence above is correct, can we say that that standard applicable only in a throw-in situation?
What bothers me is the way that contradicts 9.1.1.C(a), which happens when A1 in the backcourt passes to A2 in the frontcourt but the pass hits A2 in the back of the head and deflects back to the backcourt where A1 touches it again. That casebook situation says that is a backcourt violation, though PC was not established in the frontcourt.
Is this different because it was not on a throw-in and because the ball hitting A2 established FC status for the ball, thus a backcourt violation?

PC does not have to be established in the FC, it has to be established inbounds. After PC is established inbounds, BC rules then come into play.

Remove B1 touching the ball from the situation. We're left with A2 touching the ball in the FC. We know that this is not a violation because A2 didn't secure possession.

Now re-add B1 touching the ball. It would be highly inconsistent, not to mention unfair, that a touch by B (especially an unsuccessful attempt to secure control) would affect the restrictions placed upon A to complete the throw-in. This logic doesn't need to consider the poor wording of the Fed.

Except that is exactly what they've done if A were to catch the ball coming from a throwin while airborne having jumped from the frontcourt after it is tipped by B.

This is the part where you missed. 2 people in FC touching the ball does not give the ball FC status.

PC needs to be established in bounds before FC status can be established.His quote was correct.

It's different... because in your situation PC is established in bounds --- BY A1.

Yes, it does.

Huh? So ... you have a BC violation in the OP????

2 people touching it doesn't give the ball FC status until after the ball is possessed in bounds. The ball in the OP has not yet been possessed inbounds - no TC yet... so the touchings don't mean anything.

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

No, I don't; and that's not what I said.

4 things needed.

1) PC inbounds (and then no loss of TC)
2) Ball has FC status
3) A last to touch before ball goes to BC
4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC

(with the throw-in, jump ball and defense exceptions)

The OP has items 2, 3, 4, but not 1.

(And according to the dis-liked FED interp, 3 and 4 can happen at the same time).

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.

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. :cool:

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

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.

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?

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.

Easy Peasey Lemon Squeezy (With No Throwin) ...
 

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?

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?

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

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.