|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 01:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is this the one?
Is this Rules Interp the one that so many disagree with?
From 2007-08 Interps: SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)
__________________
-- #thereferee99 
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was noodling this situation over some after re-reading the backcourt rules and I cannot understand where the rule support exists to call this a violation. A was in team control in the front court and was the first to touch the ball in the backcourt but was not the last to touch the ball in the front court.
What rule is violated here? Or is that the question that everybody else is wondering too?
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:10pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1. Last to touch the ball while it had FC status. 2. First to touch the ball while it had BC status. Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.)
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:22pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:38pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
But seriously...
How about this - A1 throws a pass, and B1 intercepts the pass, but also happens to be standing completely OOB. Who "caused" the ball to be OOB? I know and understand the terminology between a "player" touching the ball while OOB vs. another person, such as official, coach, bench personnel, etc. But isn't this kind of the same "logic" used for this famous interp? B1 intercepting the pass while OOB meant, in effect, that they were the last to touch the ball with inbounds status, and then the first to touch while OOB, thus making them responsible for the violation. If B1 had let the ball bounce OOB first, then A would be responsible for the violation because the ball then had OOB status on the bounce. Isn't this similar to the line of thinking that, in the interp, catching the ball in the backcourt before the bounce has the same "cause and effect" of the player intercepting (or touching) a pass while OOB? Yep, I'm on very thin ice here. But I'm simply trying to come up with the "logic" behind the committee's interp.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.)
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Or, to quote a famous, esteemed member: Shut up.  
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.)
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:51pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dude, the ice is cracking. The obvious flaw in your comparison is there is no "first to touch" requirement for an OOB violation. OOB violations are determined by who "caused" the ball to have OOB status; either by touching it last in bounds or by touching it while standing OOB.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But, follow my logic: if you go strictly by definitions, 4-35-1 tells us player location: "The location of a player or non-player is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being (a) inbounds or OOB." 4-4-4 tells us "A ball which touches a player or official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location". Finally, 7-2-1 tells us, "The ball is caused to go OOB by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it..." Ok, so in my play, A1 caused the ball to go OOB because they were the last to touch it in bounds, and the ball became OOB on B1's touch/catch due to their location. Yep, I left out the remainder of 7-2-1, which goes on to say "...unless the ball touches a player who is OOB prior to touching something OOB other than a player". So, to me, this is an exception that was added to prevent a loophole caused by simply following ball and player location rules, and the first part of 7-2-1. So what does this exception effectively do? It makes the player who is standing OOB be "...the last player inbounds to touch or be touched by it...", and also caused the ball to be OOB due to their location. Maybe it was that same "logic" that caused the player in the interp to be the last to touch in the frontcourt, and caused the ball to be in the backcourt due to their location. (Again, for the record, I don't agree; I'm just trying to come up with a sort of logic to possibly explain the interp.)
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.)
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It has been this way for a while. The ball gained backcourt status when A touched it in the backcourt. That is why it is a violation. If A lets the ball bounce B, by its deflection, caused it to gain backcourt status. The ball was still in team control with front court status until A touched it in backcourt.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
