Back court violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

On the fumble- I got that. No control so the fumble one isn't a violation.

But let's start with this. A throw-in above the three point line sideline. A1 runs from say below the free throw line and catches the inbounds pass near the division line. A1 catches the ball clearly in the FC. Are you saying that if the "normal landing/or momentum causes A1 to go into the backcourt this is not a violation?


crosscountry55- So if catch in the Fc with control and foot comes into the bc, then that is a violation. If both feet in the FC and then dribble in the BC then that is a violation? Say feet stay in the FC but ball doesn't. If the ball is dribbled on the division line but feet in the FC, that is not a violation?

I need zzzz's. no mas. Get away Sugar Ray!

1) If the player catches the ball in the air, he's allowed to land in the BC. If he catches the ball on the hround (even with one foot), he cannot step into the BC.

2) Once the ball is in the FC, it's a violation to dribble the ball in the BC (including on the division line). The three-points rule applies only while dribbling from BC to FC.

[deecee]

Why is FC/BC so tough to grasp?

On a thrown in there is an exception that allows a player jumping from the FC to BC be the first to touch the ball by catching it and landing the BC with no violation. This exception does not exist during an interrupted dribble or instances where a team with TC and PC in the frontcourt get the ball batted away by the defense and the ball last touches the offensive player in the FC.

A player's position on the court is determined by where they are or where they feet/foot last touched.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

On the fumble- I got that. No control so the fumble one isn't a violation.

But let's start with this. A throw-in above the three point line sideline. A1 runs from say below the free throw line and catches the inbounds pass near the division line. A1 catches the ball clearly in the FC. Are you saying that if the "normal landing/or momentum causes A1 to go into the backcourt this is not a violation?


crosscountry55- So if catch in the Fc with control and foot comes into the bc, then that is a violation. If both feet in the FC and then dribble in the BC then that is a violation? Say feet stay in the FC but ball doesn't. If the ball is dribbled on the division line but feet in the FC, that is not a violation?

I need zzzz's. no mas. Get away Sugar Ray!

It could be depending on what definition of "fumble" you are using.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

Why is FC/BC so tough to grasp?

Because it's "almost" like OOB, but not quite.

Because there are four criteria (or at least used to be until the messed up the rule), and three exceptions

Because they messed up the rule wording when they added TC during a throw-in

Because there's (at least) one case play that no one (?) on this forum agrees with.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Because there's (at least) one case play that no one (?) on this forum agrees with.

Are you referring to the one referenced in this thread, the inbounds that is glanced by A then recovered by A in their own backcourt or a different one that I'm oblivious to ?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Are you referring to the one referenced in this thread, the inbounds that is glanced by A then recovered by A in their own backcourt or a different one that I'm oblivious to ?

The one where A2's catching the ball (not from a throw-in) in the BC is viewed simultaneously as "last to touch" and "first to touch"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Are you referring to the one referenced in this thread, the inbounds that is glanced by A then recovered by A in their own backcourt or a different one that I'm oblivious to ?

A1 has ball in FC. Throws pass towards A2, but it's tipped by B1 into the air. A2 runs into the BC and catches it.

A had TC in the FC.
B was the last to touch the ball before it went to the BC.
A was the first to touch the ball after it went to the BC.

There's an interp that states this is a violation, but the ramifications of the ruling and reasoning don't make sense given the applicable rules.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 has ball in FC. Throws pass towards A2, but it's tipped by B1 into the air. A2 runs into the BC and catches it.

A had TC in the FC.
B was the last to touch the ball before it went to the BC.
A was the first to touch the ball after it went to the BC.

There's an interp that states this is a violation, but the ramifications of the ruling and reasoning don't make sense given the applicable rules.

Thanks. Yeah it really doesn't, especially now that they added the tipped ball signal to the chart last year or whenever that was.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Thanks. Yeah it really doesn't, especially now that they added the tipped ball signal to the chart last year or whenever that was.

The signal makes no difference with the rule, but I agree that it would be an even harder call to sell after making that signal.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 has ball in FC. Throws pass towards A2, but it's tipped by B1 into the air. A2 runs into the BC and catches it.

A had TC in the FC.
B was the last to touch the ball before it went to the BC.
A was the first to touch the ball after it went to the BC.

There's an interp that states this is a violation, but the ramifications of the ruling and reasoning don't make sense given the applicable rules.

Been thinking about this for the last half hour (my classes have gotten a thorough education today...) Is this situation saying that the ball is tipped, and before it hits the ground it is caught by A2 who is in the backcourt? I still disagree, but that does change the scenario I had envisioned in my head.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Been thinking about this for the last half hour (my classes have gotten a thorough education today...) Is this situation saying that the ball is tipped, and before it hits the ground it is caught by A2 who is in the backcourt? I still disagree, but that does change the scenario I had envisioned in my head.

Yes, that's the scenario. The ruling, in order to make sense, would mean that when A2 catches the ball in the BC, he is simultaneously completing two separate acts (first to touch and last to touch) that must come, respectively, before and after a third separate act (ball going into the BC).

Ramifications:
A1 dribbling in the BC, near the FC being guarded by B1 who is standing in the FC. (TC is now established).
B1 swipes at and tips the ball into the air. (FC status is now established)
A2 catches the ball.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 has ball in FC. Throws pass towards A2, but it's tipped by B1 into the air. A2 runs into the BC and catches it.

A had TC in the FC.
B was the last to touch the ball before it went to the BC.
A was the first to touch the ball after it went to the BC.

There's an interp that states this is a violation, but the ramifications of the ruling and reasoning don't make sense given the applicable rules.

+1

I dont think the purpose and intent of the rule was to call this a violation. It would be nice for a clarification by NFHS on the above play. IMO It may not happen a lot, but it does occur enough to warrant discussion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by j51969

+1

I dont think the purpose and intent of the rule was to call this a violation. It would be nice for a clarification by NFHS on the above play. IMO It may not happen a lot, but it does occur enough to warrant discussion.

Pretty sure it's an old interp (2008, IMS) that has never been repeated nor refuted. Mostly, it's ignored.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Been thinking about this for the last half hour (my classes have gotten a thorough education today...) Is this situation saying that the ball is tipped, and before it hits the ground it is caught by A2 who is in the backcourt? I still disagree, but that does change the scenario I had envisioned in my head.

Yes.

And, if A2 steps aside (or back) and lets the ball hit the floor in the BC and THEN A2 recovers it, it's legal. (everyone agrees with this part)

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes.

And, if A2 steps aside (or back) and lets the ball hit the floor in the BC and THEN A2 recovers it, it's legal. (everyone agrees with this part)

Yup, I'm on board with that. If I'm not mistaken, this was the topic of a thread a month or two ago, with the exception being that the ball was tipped and bouncing toward the BC when recovered by A2 in the BC, but while the ball was between bounces, before it actually touched the BC. Based on this ruling, that would also be a violation.