Back court violation?
 

A1 has the ball in their front court. B1 knocks the ball loose while A1 is dribbling. In the scramble for the ball A1 touches the ball in A1's front court before regaining possesion of the ball again in the back court. Back court violation? My interpretation of the rule book says yes, a coach with 20 yrs of varsity experience says no.:)

Which of those two things do you trust more? :)

To steal from TheUmp's post in the other backcourt tread, with changes in red to make it relevant to this scenario-

Depends on the situation!:D Great coach and friend, just wanted to make sure that beverage of choice wasnt going to leave a bad after taste when I told him to pay up! Sometimes us newbies just question ourselves too much.

All things are relative, but I can tell you this with great conviction. (and the situation here is a good example) It will shock you what coaches, even those with many years of experience, do not know when it comes to the rules.

not to create another BC thread...

On a sideline inbounds play. Team A inbounds above the three point line. pass to a player running from the endline side so he catches it right near midcourt and his momentum carries over to the backcourt.
How do you call these. If A1 fumbles the ball before control but clearly in FC then goes into the backcourt, no violation?
If A1 has one foot in the front, the second one lands in the bc, is this a violation? There is control here on the pass and it is caught in the FC.
I had a play like this when A1 catches in the FC running, one foot in the FC, the second hits the mid-line and the first dribble in BC. It seems like that would be a violation. I know for FC to be established, you need two feet and ball. But does this change if you are inbouding in the FC?

I witnessed a coach who has been at it for 37 years and also didn't know in a game last year that it's "last to touch, first to touch."

His name is Tom Izzo. Just goes to show ya.

http://ref60.com/ncaa-officials-wired-up/ at the 1:28 mark.

Not true

Just another is right. Two feet and ball applies to a dribbler. It is a myth that it applies universally.

Player receiving a throw in or pass near the division line with one foot on FC and the other in the air has FC status, for example. If he/she puts that other foot down in BC, that's a violation.

This is not a violation. On an inbound play, just imagine that there are no lines on the court until both feet are on the floor. And if they fumble it before losing it into the backcourt, there was no front court control for the purposes of a backcourt violation.

A team must establish team control inbounds before they may commit a BC violation. If A1, standing in the front court, receives a throw-in and fails to gain player control before the ball goes into the backcourt where it is first touched by a Team A player, there is no violation because Team A did not establish team control inbounds.

During a jump ball, throw-in, or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and make a normal landing with one or both feet in the backcourt, regardless of whether the first foot to touch the ground is in the frontcourt or backcourt (9-9-3). Essentially, a player subject to 9-9-3 cannot commit a backcourt violation until after they have made a normal landing on the court. Note that this provision only applies during a jump ball or throw-in, meaning that normal BC violation rules apply if the jump ball or throw-in has ended (e.g. jump ball touches a non-jumper, throw-in touches another player inbounds). If a player who is subject to the relaxed 9-9-3 standard lands with both feet in the frontcourt then loses his balance and touches the division line, he has violated.

Your situation where A1 catches the ball in the frontcourt while running, the first foot hits in the frontcourt, the second foot hits on the division line, and the first dribble is in the backcourt does not have a simple answer. In order to determine whether or not this is a backcourt violation, a few questions must be answered. First, did A1 secure control during a throw-in, jump ball, or while on defense? If not, this is a backcourt violation. Second, were both of A1's feet off the ground when he caught the ball? If not, this is a backcourt violation. Third, did A1 make a "normal landing" in your opinion? This is a judgment call, but I would consider running motion to be a "normal landing." If you decide that A1 did not make a "normal landing," this is a backcourt violation. So, for this situation not to be a violation, the following three statements all must be true: A1 secured control of the ball during a throw-in, jump ball, or while on defense; both of A1's feet were off the ground when he caught the ball; A1, in your opinion, made a "normal landing" after catching the ball.

Not quite true. It would be more precise to say that the division line is not relevant in making a backcourt violation call following the ball being released on a throw-in (or, perhaps, tapped during a jump ball) until one of the following events occurs: (1) the throw-in (or jump ball) ends because (a) the ball was touched by a player who did not immediately secure control, or (b) the ball was touched by a player who caught the ball who had at least one foot on the ground at the time he caught the ball; (2) a player holding the ball makes a normal landing on the court; (3) the ball becomes dead for any reason.

You beat me to it. LOL!!

MTD, Sr.

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!

Who You Gonna Call ???
 

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6230/6...473e048e_m.jpg

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.

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.

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.

4-21
 

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

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

+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.

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.

Your adding a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter (bouncing, between bounces, etc) that doesn't matter.

And, yes, it's been discussed ad nauseum since it came out, and it comes up several times per year.

I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore (Network, 1976) ...
 

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.

Safe to say, when you get the backcourt rule and its application, you get officiating and you get varsity games. Until then, call at your own discretion.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

After careful consideration...
 

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.

Oops
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.