Back court violation?

[Rich1]

This thread has really gotten into my head so I have spent a lot of time digging and thinking about it to see if I could come up with an answer that is satisfactory (for me, at least).

I think it is safe to say that for the most part we have established the basic tenets of FC/BC and the exceptions to it mentioned earlier. What we are not confident about are the "scenarios" referenced in this thread involving B1 in the front court swatting the ball with A1 catching it in the back court.

After days of exhausting research and painful contemplation I have concluded that the proposed scenarios are NOT A BACK COURT VIOLATION.

I have based this conclusion on the following:

1) After searching through years of my own files as well as the "old interps" thread on this forum, I can find no caseplay that declares this to be a violation. If I missed it and you know where it is please share. There are other caseplays which have similar components but not one that specifically states it is a violation for A1 to catch the ball whike standing in the BC after it was batted there by B1.

2) Rule 9-9-1 specifically states that there must be team control in the front court for there to be a BC violation. In the scenarios being discussed Team A has team control in the BC only. If you are thinking that when B1 touches the ball giving it FC status and that since Team A retains team control per Rule 4-12, the last part of 9-9-1 let's Team A off the hook since they were not the last to touch it in the FC.

3) Rule 9-9-2 specifically references team control in the back court and again establishes that it is only a violation if Team A was the last to touch the ball in the FC.

4) An emphasis has been placed on "Team A was not the last to touch the ball in the front court" by rule and interpretation. Not only does it appear in this years casebook (9.9.1c) but in interpretations from past years as well. Thus, the clear "intent" of the rule is that for there to be a violation Team A must meet the "last to touch, first to touch" criteria.

5) Much of the dilemna has centered on whether or not A1 catching the ball causes the violation. To answer this we can turn to 4-4-1 which states that a ball is considered to be in the BC if it is touching a player in the BC. Rule 4-4-4 further states that a ball touching a player is the same as the ball touching the floor at that players location. Because A1 is standing in the BC as soon as he catches the ball it is also in the BC.

With all of the above considered, if I see A1 dribbling in the BC (or pass the ball from the BC to the FC) and B1 while standing in the FC swats the ball back into the BC, I will not call a violation. Until I see something definitive in writing or someone else really sells me on a different way to understand this, I can sleep at night knowing using the "last to touch/first to touch" criteria to determine backcourt violations.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why would you have those as different? Either you believe the interp and they are both a violation, or you don't believe the interp and they are both legal.

Because I misread your post and thought A2 was standing in the FC. After looking at it again, it would nt matter which member of Team A touches the ball since it was last touched in the FC by Team B.


Both would be legal and a 10 second count starts as soon as the ball attains BC status.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why would you have those as different? Either you believe the interp and they are both a violation, or you don't believe the interp and they are both legal.

However, if you consider that A1 is in the middle of the dribble, is the ball really ever in the frontcourt just because B touches it from the frontcourt?

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, if you consider that A1 is in the middle of the dribble, is the ball really ever in the frontcourt just because B touches it from the frontcourt?

The touch by B ends the dribble. At that moment, the action changes from a player progressing from BC to FC, in which all 3 points must touch in the FC for the player and ball to be in FC, to the simpler cosideration of BC/FC status of the ball and player.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The touch by B ends the dribble. At that moment, the action changes from a player progressing from BC to FC, in which all 3 points must touch in the FC for the player and ball to be in FC, to the simpler cosideration of BC/FC status of the ball and player.

Does it? By what rule?

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Does it? By what rule?

4-15-4 d . . . The dribble ends when: the ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control.

Am I misunderstanding that statement, in your estimation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

4-15-4 d . . . The dribble ends when: the ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control.

Am I misunderstanding that statement, in your estimation?

Exactly, the touch by B alone doesn't cause the dribble to end. That touch must also cause A to lose control. And the OP didn't say that the dribbler lost control in the play. It could have been, but it is not a given.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly, the touch by B alone doesn't cause the dribble to end. That touch must also cause A to lose control. And the OP didn't say that the dribbler lost control in the play. It could have been, but it is not a given.

The scenario is more than a touch, B1 is knocking the ball into another player. This dribble is over.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

The scenario is more than a touch, B1 is knocking the ball into another player. This dribble is over.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on whether the dribbler continues it without interruption or if they have to chase down the ball.

Even if the dribble ends, I think that is another horrible interpretation of the rule to make it a backcourt violation.

[bob jenkins]

Up in post #43, I indicated that the play (A3 catches the ball while standing in the BC) is a violation in NCAAW.

I have edited that post to reflect that Jon has revised his answer and this play IS NOT a violation in NCAAW.

Now if only the FED will follow suit.