Back court violation?

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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...

It seems the major factor is when/how the ball is recovered. Catching it before it hits the floor in the BC is a violation but gathering it after it has hit the floor is not. Still seems contradictory to the exceptions but at least there is enough of a distinction there to ease my mind.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich1

It seems the major factor is when/how the ball is recovered. Catching it before it hits the floor in the BC is a violation but gathering it after it has hit the floor is not. Still seems contradictory to the exceptions but at least there is enough of a distinction there to ease my mind.

the wording of the backcourt rule says player cant be first to touch ball after it been in team control in FC if he or teammate last touched it in front court BEFORE IT WENT TO BC.

the play ruling says the single touch by A2 is simultaneously touching it in FC and BC---or at the same time. simultaneously is not BEFORE. the last player to touch it BEFORE it gained BC status was B. my thoughts.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

the wording of the backcourt rule says player cant be first to touch ball after it been in team control in FC if he or teammate last touched it in front court BEFORE IT WENT TO BC.

the play ruling says the single touch by A2 is simultaneously touching it in FC and BC---or at the same time. simultaneously is not BEFORE. the last player to touch it BEFORE it gained BC status was B. my thoughts.

A LOT of people's thoughts.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A LOT of people's thoughts.

yeah, it doesnt follow. i cant remember how old the play is and if the wording of the backcourt rule was different at the time.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

yeah, it doesnt follow. i cant remember how old the play is and if the wording of the backcourt rule was different at the time.

It wasn't. This interp is not that old. Maybe in the 2008-2010 range.

[so cal lurker]

I know it is an unusual context, but I'm curious: do y'all follow that interp, or do you consider it an archaic piece of misguided history?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I know it is an unusual context, but I'm curious: do y'all follow that interp, or do you consider it an archaic piece of misguided history?

Well, Jon L just said the play is a violation in NCAAW, so ....

Edit:

Jon has revised his answer and this play IS NOT a violation in NCAAW.

Now if only the FED will follow suit.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

It seems the major factor is when/how the ball is recovered. Catching it before it hits the floor in the BC is a violation but gathering it after it has hit the floor is not. Still seems contradictory to the exceptions but at least there is enough of a distinction there to ease my mind.

So, let me propose this scenario:

A1 is dribbling in the BC. B1, standing completely in the FC, swipes at the ball knocking it a) into A1's leg, or b) off of A2's (in the BC) leg.

Do you have a violation in either a or b?

If not, do you restart your 10 second count and then begin again?

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Adam

So, let me propose this scenario:

A1 is dribbling in the BC. B1, standing completely in the FC, swipes at the ball knocking it a) into A1's leg, or b) off of A2's (in the BC) leg.

Do you have a violation in either a or b?

If not, do you restart your 10 second count and then begin again?

I've been pondering this whole discussion and will share more thoughts in another post, but based on these deep ponderings:

No violation in a) since B1 was last to touch. Start a new 10 count as soon as ball obtains BC status.

Violation in b) if Team A is first to touch in BC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I've been pondering this whole discussion and will share more thoughts in another post, but based on these deep ponderings:

No violation in a) since B1 was last to touch. Start a new 10 count as soon as ball obtains BC status.

Violation in b) if Team A is first to touch in BC.

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.

[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?

[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.