Throw-In Situation (NCAA)
 

With both the men's and the women's rules proposals including not awarding a new 10 second count in certain situations, how would you rule this situations (NCAA rules)

A1 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt. A1 passes to A2, but B1 deflects the ball OOB. The new throw-in spot is located near the division line but in the backcourt (yes, the thrower-in doesn't have a location per se but for this scenario, let's say the player is in the "backcourt") The shot clock at this point shows 21 (women)/26 (men). A1 is the thrower in for the throw-in and throws the ball toward the front court. A2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball the ball while airborne, then lands in the backcourt.

What do you deem to the correct interpretation on this play?

I would give team A ten seconds from when A2 lands to return the ball to the frontcourt as the ball achieved frontcourt status on the catch and there is no backcourt violation due to the throw-in exception.

Does not the exception effectively cause a "neutral or undefined" status regarding the ball location, and therefore the subsequent landing in the backcourt by A2, while in possession of the ball, cause the ball to be in the backcourt and the 10-second count to continue?;)

No.

A ball that is touching a player in the air has the location of the player when the player last touched the court.

There will now be throw-in plays where coaches tell their players to jump from the FC to the BC while catching the throw-in.

While I agree with the conclusions being drawn here, I think it is safe to say that the intent of the change would not be to restart the count at 0 in this sort of play.

I could see either an interpretation or even a rule update to say that a player who catches the ball in the air on a throwin does not give the ball frontcourt/backcourt status until they land. That would solve this issue as well as a number of other issues.

The NCAAM definition of ball location for airborne players--4-23-2 specifically excludes the throw in. says "(except during a throw in)". Somewhere else there is a case play or it was a test answer saying that the airborne player has "no status" when he first to touch it from throw in.

Now I know that APG was the moderator who was also a camper at York last weekend.

To answer the original question. It is a 10 second violation. (if touched at 26 on a 35 second clock it will go to 25 with no FC status. count continues if touched at 26 on a 30 clock)

There are a lot of people on this forum that heard Jon Levinson speak at York, apparently. :)

Shot clock violation? I think you meant backcourt violation, which is incorrect. Bob's answer is correct. The ball gains front court status when touched by the player in the air that last contacted the ground in the front court. The exception allows that player to land in the backcourt without a violation being called.

No violation. Start a new, visible, 10 second count.

I meant to say 10 second violation…and i was thinking on the 35 second clock. look at 4-23-2. it states airborne player status is where last in contact with floor "(except during throw in)" i believe last years test had an answer and explanation saying also that the airborne player, during throw in, has "no status." this goes along with 4-23-2. on a 30 second clock i believe count continues. on the 35 second clock it is a violation since player touching it had no status. ball did not gain FC status before clock went to 25. my two cents.

Yes, for the player (although I had forgotten this part when I made my statement).

But, for the ball:

a. A ball that is in contact with a player or with the playing court shall be in
the back court when either the ball or the player (either player when the
ball is touching more than one) is touching the back court. It shall be in the
front court when neither the ball nor the player is touching the back court.

Since the neither the player nor the ball is touching the backcourt, the ball must be in the front court. ??

I agree with Camron that an interp / change is needed.

clarification would be helpful. i do think to determine status when ball in air and player in air you have to look at airborne player location rule. i dont think rule above applies. that deals with thrown passes etc that strike the court or players holding ball near division line. lift a foot etc...imo

9-13-10
 

In the women's book, rule 9-13-10 will have to be clarified. Right now, a player who leaps from the front court and catches a throw in with both feet off the court can land on either side of the division line; my 'common sense' interpretation would be to assume that the ball never achieved front court status in this scenario, but yes, some clarification will be necessary.

The NCAA-Women's committee is going to give the ball FC status on the catch and still allow the throw-in exception to land in the BC. So a new 10-second will be given.

Why would you assume that?
Why not accept that the ball achieves frontcourt status on the catch and then returns to the backcourt on the landing, but due to the throw-in exception the team does not commit a violation?

As it should. Don't change the rule because of a situation which occurs infrequently.

I know you are asking Matt….but….I would assume what you say but for the wording of 4-23-2. It discusses player location just as we all know it---player located where last in contact with court. ball location when have airborne player is last location of the player. I agree with you on everything accept throw in. 4-23-2 says (except during throw in). That language has to mean something..?

They may clarify but you could argue from that language that when I touch the ball in the air during throw in i have no status and thus the ball has no status….until I land. So clock starts on touching and count continues…

BTW-good to be back...

This
 

Exactly what BigCat said. The intent of the rule change is likely to both reward good defense and make the game more exciting. As with any rule change, all loopholes must be closed...I don't think the committee is looking to create situations where coaches can try to circumvent the true intent of the rule.

My .02
 

I wondered how long it would take for this conversation to take place. And, as I stated at York, there will be a conversation with the men concerning this. Nowhere was it ever stated that the women's committee would be doing anything with this. And I did present the play for discussion and what MAY be the correct answer.

We know that the player who catches the throw-in may land in either the backcourt or frontcourt. NFHS goes so far as to say that this player has no status relative to frontcourt or backcourt status if that player (and only that player) returns to the floor possessing the ball (NFHS 2014-15 Point of Emphasis, page 69). The NCAA books do not specifically make this statement. 9-13.10 does not state that this player does or does not have any status.

Just sit tight...

But do look at 4-23.2 ;)

Your comment that the airborne player receiving the throw-in pass has no status relative to frontcourt/backcourt is not correct under NFHS rules. That phrase in the POE is also wrong. Unfortunately, different people author the rules and POEs over time and they sometimes don't fully understand what has been written previously.

I provided the correct understanding in post #17.

Here's what the Men's side says in regards to player location:

4-23 Art. 2. When a player is in the air from a leap (except during a throw-in) or when a defensive player intercepts a ball while in the air, the player's status with reference to these two situations shall be the same as at the time the player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.


Does the Women's rule read the same?

Yes

Nevada - this is the phrasing from the NF POEs last season. It's on Arbiter:

Not that I agree with NF's "no status" determination but that's what it says. I do agree with your earlier comment as to what it should be: frontcourt status on the catch, backcourt status on the landing but given the exception it's not a violation. I think that's the least muddled way to look at things.

Think about it... Player jumps from Back Court, catches the ball and lands 1st foot in Front Court and 2nd foot in back Court.
Catches the ball. Has Back Court status
Lands in Front Court. Has Front Court status.
Touches Back Court. Has Back Court status. VIOLATION:)

Yes, that's how it has always been. The exception only applies to a player jumping front his FRONTCOURT.

Not on a throwin.

NCAA 4-3-8:
NFHS 9-9-3:

I'm sorry Zooch. (i like that better than ZoochY. please consider changing your name:D) ive proven here on the forum i can be a bit slow. i understand normal status rules. not clear on your first few sentences.

during throw in i can catch in air and land first foot in Fc second in BC and it is not a violation. exception to normal BC rules. i get to make natural landing.
what we are trying to figure out is does the 10 second count end moment i touch ball in air if i left from FC. under normal rules the ball has FC status. count should end. NCAAm status stuff however says, "except during throw in"...

so maybe they subscribe to the theory when you catch ball in air off a throw in you have no status until you land. therefore, count continues on touch and vilation....its been a long day...
i do not think they should change status rules further. if player jumps from front court then the ball has FC status and count should end. he can land in BC and not violation cause of the exception. i dont see a reason to change it to "no status." we will see what they come up with...

Zooch, i saw Nevada post and he is right...and you are right that if player jumps from BC and catches ball in air, first foot down is in FC..he has FC status. if he touches the other foot in BC he has violated. the OP we were talking about had player jumping from FC and catching ball i air. i think question was do we stop the 10 count....