Another backcourt

Valley Man

White has the ball in their front court. W1 throws an errant pass to W2. The ball sails past W2 for the corner where the division line and the side line meet. Before the ball goes out of bounds or into the back court, W2 saves it behind her back. The ball hits on the division line with English, bounces on the division line, then bounces back into the front court where W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

thumpferee

Valley Man wrote
White has the ball in their front court. W1 throws an errant pass to W2. The ball sails past W2 for the corner where the division line and the side line meet. Before the ball goes out of bounds or into the back court, W2 saves it behind her back. The ball hits on the division line with English, bounces on the division line, then bounces back into the front court where W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

Are you ABSOLUTELY certain the ball hit the line?:cool:

BillyMac

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

Check. Check. Check. Check. Backcourt violation.

Camron Rust

Billy is correct.

Said another way:

The ball (in team control for W, and in W's FC) returned to the BC when it bounced on the division line.

Who was the last to touch it before that bounce? W.
Who was the next to touch it after that bounce? W.

Violation.

The fact that it also bounced in the FC is irrelevant. It did return to the back and who touched it last before and next after that even is all that matters.

CJP

Valley Man wrote
White has the ball in their front court. W1 throws an errant pass to W2. The ball sails past W2 for the corner where the division line and the side line meet. Before the ball goes out of bounds or into the back court, W2 saves it behind her back. The ball hits on the division line with English, bounces on the division line, then bounces back into the front court where W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

I am not calling a violation on this play. I think the intent of the rule is that the player should be in the backcourt during the touch to be a violation.

BillyMac

(Apologies to Oldsmobile.)

CJP wrote
I am not calling a violation on this play.

I'm probably not calling a violation either, not because of intent and purpose, but because, on this odd bang bang play, I seriously doubt that I could check off all four elements and figure out it's a backcourt violation before it's too late to call. And I also doubt that I'll get any complaints from players, coaches, or fans.

SNIPERBBB

CJP wrote
I am not calling a violation on this play. I think the intent of the rule is that the player should be in the backcourt during the touch to be a violation.

So a player could, after establishing control in the front court, dribble the ball onto the division line all day long?

CJP

SNIPERBBB wrote
So a player could, after establishing control in the front court, dribble the ball onto the division line all day long?

No. My statement was specific to the original post not to every possible backcourt situation.

bob jenkins

CJP wrote
I am not calling a violation on this play. I think the intent of the rule is that the player should be in the backcourt during the touch to be a violation.

The intent is that the offense play within the 42' x 50' (FED, and I'm not getting hung up on the width of the division line) rectangle that defines the front court (while also not prematurely killing the play that would give the defense an advantage).

They didn't.

Call the violation.

CJP

bob jenkins wrote
The intent is that the offense play within the 42' x 50' (FED, and I'm not getting hung up on the width of the division line) rectangle that defines the front court (while also not prematurely killing the play that would give the defense an advantage).

They didn't.

Call the violation.

No players left the frontcourt and the ball has frontcourt status when recovered. I am not worried about the repercussions of not calling this a violation.

SNIPERBBB

Once the ball touches the backcourt after being last touched by the offense, they cant touch the ball again until its touched by the defense.

bucky

CJP wrote
I am not calling a violation on this play. I think the intent of the rule is that the player should be in the backcourt during the touch to be a violation.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Soooooo, W1, in the FC, could throw the ball, with back spin, into the BC, so that the ball returns to the FC, where W1 could recover?

Just teasing.😉

zm1283

CJP wrote
No players left the frontcourt and the ball has frontcourt status when recovered. I am not worried about the repercussions of not calling this a violation.

What about a ball that hits the sideline but the player who last touched it doesn't leave the court?

CJP

zm1283 wrote
What about a ball that hits the sideline but the player who last touched it doesn't leave the court?

You are trying to compare an apple to an orange. Both fruit but still different.

Camron Rust

CJP wrote
You are trying to compare an apple to an orange. Both fruit but still different.

But your fruit is sour.

Simply put, you're wrong to argue this shouldn't be called. There is no argument to not call it any more than not calling a ball sailing OOB where A1 attempts to save it but it bounces on the sideline in doing so. The only difference is that in the division line case, team B is allowed to recover it and play on while team A isn't.

CJP

Camron Rust wrote
But your fruit is sour.

Simply put, you're wrong to argue this shouldn't be called. There is no argument for not call it any more than not calling a ball sailing OOB where A1 attempts to save it but it bounces on the sideline in doing so. The only difference is that in the division line case, team B is allowed to recover it and play on while team A isn't.

Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

Nevadaref

CJP wrote
Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

Unfortunately, I’ve run into several officials with this kind of attitude. Specifically, those who state I’m not calling such and such because I don’t like it.
Mostly, I ignore them and they languish at the subvarsity level. For the occasional ones who make it to the varsity level, I use the block feature.

Camron Rust

CJP wrote
Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

Wow. Just wow. This isn't some quirk of the rules. Team A gets an advantage by using a larger space than they're allowed. Do you let them step on the OOB line too as long as it isn't too much?

How can we ever expect to have consistency when people like you consciously choose to set aside basic rules? Pathetic.

deecee

It's one thing to miss it like Billy says as it's a very close play with a lot of stuff going on. The other is to not call a violation that would give the other team the ball because you simply don't think it's "fair". There are moments, as an official, to apply "fair" to a game and the rules, but this, IMO, isn't one of them.

CJP

Camron Rust wrote
Wow. Just wow. This isn't some quirk of the rules. Team A gets an advantage by using a larger space than they're allowed. Do you let them step on the OOB line too as long as it isn't too much?

How can we ever expect to have consistency when people like you consciously choose to set aside basic rules? Pathetic.

1. This is not a "basic" rule situation.
2. I will probably never see this play and if I do, the chances that I will be standing at the division line to see the ball actually strike the line is even more unlikely. I am not going to be the guy who goes after that "quirky" play just to prove his rules knowledge.
3. Consistency? Don't be so dramatic. No calls on this play are not running rampant.

Have a great day guys. Thanks for the discussion.