Backcourt

[Valley Man]

A1 dribbling in his frontcourt attempts a pass to A2. B1 deflects pass and knocks it high in the air towards A1's backcourt. A1 runs into the backcourt and catches the ball. Legal?

[grunewar]

Ask yourself, what has to be proven to have back court? There are four things.

You can also use the "Search" capability in the Forum to find the answer.

Originally Posted by grunewar

Ask yourself, what has to be proven to have back court? There are four things.

You can also use the "Search" capability in the Forum to find the answer.

Can I answer??

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Can I answer??

Of course. But, you know where I'm going with this.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

A1 dribbling in his frontcourt attempts a pass to A2. B1 deflects pass and knocks it high in the air towards A1's backcourt. A1 runs into the backcourt and catches the ball. Legal?

By rule or by FED interp? lol.

[Valley Man]

I struggle to find things with the search but I will try again.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

By rule or by FED interp? lol.

The real question.

[Valley Man]

Legal

1. Player control obtained (inbounds), establishing true team control
2. Ball gains frontcourt status (it may or may not be in player control at this point)
3. Ball last touched by team A BEFORE the ball goes into the backcourt
4. Ball first touched by team A AFTER it goes into the backcourt

[Rob1968]

We do tend to re-hash this on a regular basis.

The factor that the ball still has A-team frontcourt status, after B's deflection, while it is in the air, followed by A1 touching it, while A1 is in the A-team backcourt, can follow two divergent logic strains:

The first is that A1's touching simultaneously equates to A1 being the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and first to touch it in the backcourt, thus causing a team A backcourt violation. The companion statement is that if A1 allows the ball to touch the court, or a B player, in the backcourt, before A1 touches the ball, there is no violation.

The second logic strain is that B1 is the last to touch the ball while it has A-team frontcourt status, thus interrupting the elements that would cause a backcourt violation.

Both logic paths have their supporters, the first being the NF stated understanding, which is not presently in the Case Book.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

By rule or by FED interp? lol.

I don't think I've every told you this before, bob.

shut up

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't think I've every told you this before, bob.

shut up

Wouldn't that make it nearly impossible to "always listen to Bob"?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

I struggle to find things with the search but I will try again.

Here is a general search tip:

Go to google, type in....

site:forum.officiating.com backcourt violation etc. etc. etc.

Adding "site:someWebsite" to your search restricts the search to that site. Such searches can be a lot better than using the forum's integrated search in many cases.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

....can follow two divergent logic strains:

The first is that A1's touching simultaneously equates to A1 being the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and first to touch it in the backcourt, thus causing a team A backcourt violation. The companion statement is that if A1 allows the ball to touch the court, or a B player, in the backcourt, before A1 touches the ball, there is no violation.

The second logic strain is that B1 is the last to touch the ball while it has A-team frontcourt status, thus interrupting the elements that would cause a backcourt violation.

Both logic paths have their supporters, the first being the NF stated understanding, which is not presently in the Case Book.

The problem with the NF stated understanding is that it is fundamentally impossible for a single event (the final touch) to be both BEFORE and AFTER (the terms of the rule) a reference point (the ball gaining backcourt status). The NF interpretation pure horseshit and can't be defended with a straight face after reading the rule.

[OKREF]

So what's the answer? My initial thought is that this isn't a violation, because Team B was the last to touch it in the frontcourt, and the ball hasn't touched the floor in the backcourt. When Team A touches the ball in the backcourt, does the ball simultaneously have backcourt and frontcourt status?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So what's the answer? My initial thought is that this isn't a violation, because Team B was the last to touch it in the frontcourt, and the ball hasn't touched the floor in the backcourt. When Team A touches the ball in the backcourt, does the ball simultaneously have backcourt and frontcourt status?

By rule, not a violation.

By old interp that most people aren't aware of, it's a violation. The ruling in that interp was flawed, in that they said it was a violation because A "caused the ball to have BC status." Causing the ball to have BC status is never a violation.