Back court violation?

[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!

[BillyMac]

A ten-second count continues when the defense deflects or bats the ball in the backcourt. When a dribbler is advancing the ball into the frontcourt, the ball maintains backcourt status until both feet and the ball touch entirely in the frontcourt.

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt, or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not a backcourt violations.

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his or her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Bingo. Backcourt was tough enough for rookies before the "change" but now it's just crazy.

Can the Official Forum do something about this? I send my Official Forum dues to Treasurer Mark Padgett every month, and I want the Forum to use that money to lobby the NFHS for a change in the rule to make the backcourt interpretation more consistent across all situations.

[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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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?

So if catch in the Fc with control and foot comes into the bc, then that is a violation. YES

If both feet in the FC and then dribble in the BC then that is a violation? YES

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. It IS a violation. What I meant by the rule only applying to the dribbler is for a dribbler with BC status crossing the division line into FC. In this situation, all three points (2 feet + ball) apply. Let's say the dribbler backs into the front court and gets two feet on the FC side of the line but the ball keeps bouncing on the BC side. In this case the dribbler is still located in the BC. The moment his dribble first bounces on the FC side, the ball now has FC status, and any subsequent dribble on or behind the line would be a BC violation.