Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
The problem with the interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense. The rule is designed to keep the offensive team from being able to use the backcourt area once they get it across the division line. If the defense gets involved in the play and directs the ball to that area of the court, the offense should be able to play the ball....whether it hits the ground first or not.
This really becomes apparent in a few situations.
A1 holding or dribbling the ball in the backcourt at the division line. B1, in the frontcourt, knocks the ball away (briefly touching the ball for a moment after A1 giving it frontcourt status) and off of A1's leg. Should that be a backcourt violation?
A1, in the backcourt near the division line, tries to throw a pass that is deflected right back to them by B1 who was in the frontcourt. Why should that be a violation?
Again, as worded, the rule just doesn't support the conclusion that before is the same as after. Before and After a specific event just can not be the same time. In fact, neither before nor after can be at the same time as the reference event itself. That is basic logic. Otherwise, as defender could obtain LGP after the shooter was airborne and claim he had it before.  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
These two examples are key, IMO. MTD must be willing to call those violations in order to say the OP is a violation.
Mark?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
We have three distinct acts that must, by definition, occur in order rather than simultaneously for a violation to occur.
A. The ball is touched by A BEFORE it goes into the BC.
B. The ball goes into the backcourt.
C. The ball is touched by A AFTER it goes into the BC.
It is impossible for A and C to be the same act.
|
I understand the logic that Camron is advocating and could easily be convinced to rewrite the rule to make Camron's position the rule and thereby repealing the current rules interpretation.
That said, what I have written earlier in this thread is and has been the NFHS and NCAA position for over fifty years, and the current rules interpretation supports their position.
Most of you know that I believe that rules interpretations should be rule based, but when the NFHS or NCAA issues a rules interpretation that must be followed until the NHFS and NCAA can be convinced to correct their error.
And I know how difficult that can be. Dick Knox (of the North CarolinaHSAA) was the NFHS Rules Committee Chairman and Mary Struckhoff was the Rules Editor, the NFHS issued a Pre-Season Interpretation that was not only incorrect, it used incorrect Rules references to support the interpretation; the Pre-Season Interpretation contradicted an existing Casebook Play which used the correct Rules references to support the Casebook Play. It took me a number emails between Dick and Mary and myself to convince Mary that the Pre-Season Interpretation was incorrect and an the Ruling changed and the correct Rules references listed.
That said, we have a Rule that can be ambiguous at best, a Rules Committee's philosophy that is over fifty years old, and a Rules Interpretation that supports the Rules Committee's philosophy.
Camron, if you want to write and rule that eliminates any confusion and overturns the current Rules Interpretation I am all for it and will be happy to contact the "big wigs" that I know in and effort to change it.
MTD, Sr.