Over and back scenarios
 

Over and back or not?s

While bringing the ball up the court A1 has the ball in the front court, passes to A2 who is airborne and has not made contact yet with the front court floor?

Same scenario as above, but the ball does not leave the front court, but A2 has still not contacted the floor in the frontcourt prior to catching the pass?

3rd scenario, A1 passes to A2; however, this time airborne A2 is in physical contact with B1 who is in the front court?

My understanding is in the first 2 scenarios there would be a violation, because A2 has not established themselves in the frontcourt until actually touching the front court floor. However, in the 3rd scenario since A1 is touching B2 who is considered in the front court there is no violation.

Thoughts. I couldnt seem to find what I was looking for in the rules book.

Thanks

there are a lot of threads on backcourt if you do the advanced search you can find them. They are quite helpful.


I assume you mean the other player had jumped from the BC, after FC has been established so that would be a violation for the first.

Even the 3rd is a violation. Touching another player doesn't affect a player's status. Only the last point on the floor that they touched is relevant. A2 is in the backcourt, having last touched the court in the backcourt. Touching B2 doesn't matter.

Teachable Moment ...
 

Good time to remind young officials that if a ball handler touches a person (player, substitute, coach, trainer, cheerleader, police officer in the corner, etc.) out of bounds, the ball handler is not out of bounds.

(Note: The police officer's K-9 is probably not considered a person for the interpretation of this rule. And, yes, here in my little corner of Connecticut, we do have this situation in some of our state technical high schools.)

I agree. 1st and 2nd cases are violations. 3rd case is, too, unless the touching you referred to resulted in a personal foul before the ball touched A2.

Camron answered your questions, but I have one now.

How are these two scenarios different?

I think the difference he implied was where airborne A2 was with respect to the plane of the division line at the time he caught the pass from A1. In the first case, he was over the backcourt side, and in the second case he was over the frontcourt side.

This difference is, of course, irrelevant. The location of A2 is the same as when he was last in contact with the court, i.e. he is located in the backcourt in both cases. Therefore, backcourt violation in both cases.

Yet another ruling which was modified due to a screw up by Mary.
Do you remember the discussion when this was published?

Was that an MS mistake that got fixed?

Personhood ???
 

No I don't. Can you elaborate?

Thanks for the input everyone. A call in a highschool game I was watching last night had me a little confused on the third scenario.