Back court violation?

[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.

[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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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 while standing in backcourt.

I'll have to dig out my old interps but unless I find something specific I am struggling with this being illigal because Team A was not the last to touch the ball in the front court and when A2 catches the ball he gives it BC status. I see this as no different than if B1 batted a dribbled ball into the back court.

If anyone has already dug up an old interp for this play a reference would be appreciated (and save me some time).

i dont have the play number but what it says is that when the ball is batted by B1 the ball gains FC status as you note. when it is in the air, IT still has frontcourt status. A2 touches a ball that has FC status and he also gives it BC status when he does it. his single touch of the ball is simultaneously the last to touch FC and first to touch BC. that's the play reasoning. bad play...

[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.

[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.

[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.