[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The rules interpretation in question is:

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)


This interpretation is pretty cut and dry. In fact, I have been a registered basketball official since 1971 and this has been the interpretation as long as I have been an official and even before I became an official. I don't feel like climbing up in the attic but I am pretty sure that this play has been in either the NFHS Casebook or the Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada Casebook in the past.

Just breakdown the play. Team A had control of the ball in its frontcourt; therefore the ball had frontcourt status. B1's deflecting of the ball did not did not change anything; Team A still had control of the ball and the ball still had frontcourt status. A2 then moved from Team A's frontcourt to Team A's backcourt; that means A2 court status is in Team A's backcourt. When A2 touches the ball he causes the ball to go from frontcourt to backcourt and also becomes the first player from Team A to touch the ball after Team A caused the ball to go from frontcourt to backcourt.

This is really a simple play and as I have said earlier in this post, this interpretation has been in effect for both high school and college for well over 45 years. I can't see any other ruling based upon the rules.


Why have I brought this play back to life. I have had some officials tell me that this ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule. I haven't been able to find any previous threads concerning this play. Therefore, I am asking anybody who does not agree with this interpretation to please defend your position.

Thanks.

MTD, Sr.