Backcourt

[Colin]

Rule Reference: 9-1-1 (and maybe various artilcles of 4-4 as well):

Situation: A1 is in control of the ball in the backcourt during an advance to frontcourt. A1 throws a pass toward the frontcourt. B1, standing in the frontcourt, deflects said pass which then goes into the air back in the direction of the backcourt. A2, who is in the backcourt, catches the ball before it strikes the floor. In other words, the ball does not touch the court between the deflection by B1 and the catch by A2.

Is this a backcourt violation? Why or why not? We have a tentative agreement to disagree in my association, so I'm looking for all of the opinions and rationales I can get. Thanks.

[PBouch]

Hey Colin,

I would say no. This is a control question. Even though B1 who is in front court deflects the ball he did not change the status of the ball since he did not control it. The only way a player is in control is possession or dribble. The ball maybe in front court (1pt) but the last player in control was in the back court. So when the ball came back to A1 we only had 1 pt of 3, (Feet being the other 2) ball is still considered in back court. AND whatever count he had previous to the deflection is still on. I don't think the ball touching the court has any bearing on the status of the ball. Even if it was a bounce pass that B1 deflected back to A1 the situation is the same.

[Colin]

I agree on the ultimate call but respectfully disagree on the way you got to it. First of all, the issue of three points only applies to a dribbler (4-4-6). My set-up scenario contains no dribblers, so this rationale can be discounted.

Second, I believe that court status and control are independent concepts that must be judged apart from one another yet tied together via Rule 9-9 to determine if a backcourt violation has occurred. It's complex...no wonder there are so many backcourt violation case studies.

My interpretation is as follows:

1. Team A control is constant since B1 deflected but did not control the ball.
2. Said deflection gives the ball frontcourt status as per 4-4-2, and the ball retains frontcourt status even while in the air headed toward the backcourt due to 4-4-3.
3. Backcourt status resumes when A2 catches the ball (4-4-1).
4a. See 9-9-1. Team A, while it had control the entire time, did not have that control IN the frontcourt because no Team A player touched the ball in the frontcourt as per 4-4-2. Thus you cannot have a backcourt violation if Team A never has control IN the frontcourt in the first place. NO VIOLATION.
4b. See 9-9-1 a different way. Suppose you interpret that the deflection by B1, which changes court status, is enough to define Team A as having control IN the frontcourt (because the ball now has frontcourt status and Team A still has team control through the deflection as per 4-12-3b via 4-12-2b). Ok. But then A2, who is the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, is touching a ball that was last touched in the frontcourt by a non-teammate. To me, this is still NO VIOLATION.

Two of my contemporaries argue that this is a matter of who causes the ball to regain backcourt status. Consider a player with control who, when falling out of bounds, throws the ball against an opponent who is already out of bounds. That opponent causes the ball to be out of bounds as per 9-3-1. My friends contend that the same is true for this situation, stating that A2 is responsible for the resumption of backcourt status since the airborne deflection still had frontcourt status per 4-4-3 at that point. They contend (erroneously, I believe) that this responsibility equates to a backcourt violation as if the division line were some kind of boundary line. I agree that it is in some respects, but not in this case. Thoghts?

[Victor.Cotham]

While I agree with your intentions, I disagree with the application of the rules.

The last to touch, first to touch rationale applies here... This would be the same as a team dribbling in the front court, deflected toward the back court by the defense, and first touched in the back court by the offensive team. If the team in control does not allow the ball to regain back court status before recovering it, they have committed a back court violation.

The fundamentals of a back court violation have all been met.

The ball must be in team control in the front court. While I agree, no one on the team in control touched the ball in the front court, team control does not end on a deflected pass or dribble. Team control only changes when the ball is secured by the other team. The ball, however, has earned front court status by touching, or being touched, by ANY player or the floor in the front court.

The team in control must NOT be the ones to give the ball back court status. The deflected pass may be tipped back into the back court. However, the offensive team must have the presence of mind to put that onus on the defense. If they allow the ball to bounce in the back court, regaining its back court status, I have no violation. However, if they catch the ball while it STILL HAS front court status, they have violated.

Exactly as the example of the out of bounds play. I can toss it out of bounds, but if the other team chooses to catch it out there... It's their violation, not mine!

[Colin]

Seems like a good argument. Might even be right. But I would like to know what reference you got fundamental #2 from.

All I have is 9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

We agree on the issue of team control existing in the frontcourt, so 9-1-1 is ripe for application. However, the second part of the rule directly states that a player on the team that is eligible to violate must touch or be touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it goes to the backcourt for a violation to occur. No Team A player ever touched the ball in the frontcourt. And I disagree that you can equate A2's responsibility for the ball regaining backcourt status as the same as "touching or being touched by the ball in the frontcourt". Even if you do say that, said frontcourt touch would have to occur simultaneously with the act of "[going] to the backcourt." The rule uses the word "before," indicating a progression of events, not a simultaneous event.

9-9-2 cannot apply because the ball touched a player in the frontcourt. Obviously if B1 had instead been an official, then we have a different situation (i.e., a violation). 9-9-3, the only other backcourt violation provision, is also out.

I believe I remember having a discussion about the two backcourt fundamentals last year at a TOA meeting. I believe we were talking about Case Book 9.1.1D. If they are firm fundamentals and you are indeed correct on this ruling, than hopefully you would at least agree that the language in Rule 9-9-1 should be edited for clarity. =)

Great discussion!

[RTurner]

Back court violation. Team A caused the ball to regain back court status when A2 caught it in flight. The ball still had front court status when B1 tipped it. Team A, in team control, cannot while in team control, cause a ball to regain back court status. Had the ball hit the floor in A's back court before A2 touched it, there would be no violation. A2's catch caused the ball to gain back court status. Great discussion!

[PBouch]

This is not a back court violation. B did not have control so the status of the ball is still backcourt. When A caught it there was no violation, but his count he had before B deflected the ball continues.

[Victor.Cotham]

This is not a back court violation. B did not have control so the status of the ball is still backcourt. When A caught it there was no violation, but his count he had before B deflected the ball continues.

Do not confuse "control" with "location." B does not need to gain control for the ball to receive front court status. Can a player OOB "deflect" the ball back in bounds? As soon as the ball touches the court, a player, an official, or an other item that is in the front court, it has front court status.

Therefore, when A2 catches the ball in the back court, they are the one that gives the ball back court status again.

[Colin]

Victor,
I like your point, but you have to admit that it does conflict with your earlier declation in this thread that the "last to touch, first to touch" rationale applies. To me, B1 was the last to touch in the frontcourt and A2 is the first to touch in the backcourt. They're on different teams, so that wouldn't equate to a backcourt violation.

That being said, there's a growing and overwhelming consensus that I'm wrong. So the only conclusion I can come to is that, in this case, last to touch and first to touch occur simultaneously with A2's catch.

So...I recommend the following edit of Rule 9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by a ball with frontcourt status prior to or in conjunction with the ball going to the backcourt.

How do you like 'dem apples?

[PBouch]

Guys I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is not a back court violation. B in A's front court didn't control the ball. Since the last to control was A the ball still has back court status. So A was the last to control, count continues.

[Victor.Cotham]

Victor,
I like your point, but you have to admit that it does conflict with your earlier declation in this thread that the "last to touch, first to touch" rationale applies. To me, B1 was the last to touch in the frontcourt and A2 is the first to touch in the backcourt. They're on different teams, so that wouldn't equate to a backcourt violation.

Now that I'm back home, with books... This is almost a direct case play from the book. In the case play, it is NOT a backcourt violation. It is Case Play 9.9.1 Sit C.

The play in the book is legal when B3 tips the ball back, as B is the last to touch in the front court. However, I challenge that this is different from the OP in the fact that it says "B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt." The only way that it can be back in A's backcourt is if it touches something in the backcourt. Until it does, it is still in the frontcourt.

I still think A has the responsibility to allow B to establish the backcourt status for them.

What do you guys think? I may be able to sway to not being a violation, if not for this small difference in the case play. Gotta love the backcourt rule.

Guys I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is not a back court violation. B in A's front court didn't control the ball. Since the last to control was A the ball still has back court status. So A was the last to control, count continues.

Again, do NOT confuse control with location. If A1 passes into front court and it bounces, touches, or is touched by anything or anyone in the front court, the ball gains front court status.

Rule 4-4-2. A ball which is in CONTACT with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

Rule 4-4-4. A ball which TOUCHES a player or official is the same as the ball touching the floor at the individual's location.

Great discussion!

[Colin]

From a status perspective, I agree with you that the only way the ball can be back in A's backcourt is by touching something in the backcourt. In my case, that something is a player, A2. However, the previous touch by B1 in the frontcourt, just as in the case play, makes A2's catch a legal play. To quote 9.9.1C, "a Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt," thereby citing to the last-to-touch, first-to-touch doctrine.

Notice how the setup for the case play states, "...B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt." How A2 recovers the ball, whether with frontcourt or backcourt status, is not specified. You would think that if there was a way for A2's recovery in this case to constitute a backcourt violation that it would be spelled out as another caveat to this case play. It isn't, therefore I don't believe the manner of A2's recovery is important so much as is where and by whom it was last touched before he recovered it.