backcourt question from Rulebox

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yep.

Why? If there is an interpretation, whether it makes sense or not, covers the play in black or white why should there be variance?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Why? If there is an interpretation, whether it makes sense or not, covers the play in black or white why should there be variance?

The interpretation itself is the variance. It varies 180 degrees from the rule. You have to choose to follow one or the other. Most of us choose the rule.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The interpretation itself is the variance. It varies 180 degrees from the rule. You have to choose to follow one or the other. Most of us choose the rule.

I understand that. But it's very clear cut with a very clear application. It may be opposite what the rule says, however it covers 1 specific application of the rule. I don't see what the fuss it. It doesn't have to make sense but it's very clear cut.

[Valley Man]

Last year we got the directions to give a tipped ball signal when this situation occurs. So according to the divide here, one must wait until the ball hits the floor in the backcourt? I don't recall seeing that stipulation

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I understand that. But it's very clear cut with a very clear application. It may be opposite what the rule says, however it covers 1 specific application of the rule. I don't see what the fuss it. It doesn't have to make sense but it's very clear cut.

It is

• a contradiction with the rule
• fundamentally wrong
• inconsistent with the way it has been called for decades
• introduces several ridiculous possibilities.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is

• a contradiction with the rule
• fundamentally wrong
• inconsistent with the way it has been called for decades
• introduces several ridiculous possibilities.

Don't disagree with any of this but its a clear cut example with ruling.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Don't disagree with any of this but its a clear cut example with ruling.

So, how will you call the following play?

A1 dribbling (or holding) in the backcourt near/on/straddling the division line. B1, entirely in the frontcourt, bats the ball such that it bounces off A1's leg.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wyo96

Does anyone have anything that contradicts this Interp? If not, the OP is a violation.

Just the rule itself.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is

• a contradiction with the rule
• fundamentally wrong
• inconsistent with the way it has been called for decades
• introduces several ridiculous possibilities.

* A nearly 10 year old interp that has not recurred since nor shown up in the case play.

Originally Posted by joelpoli

doesn't A1 touching the ball that still has frontcourt status make A1 the "first to touch and the last to touch"?

There are three separate events that cannot happen simultaneously due to "before" and "after" requirements listed in the rules.

1. Touching the ball before it goes into the BC.
2. The ball gaining BC status.
3. Touching the ball after it gained BC status.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, how will you call the following play?

A1 dribbling (or holding) in the backcourt near/on/straddling the division line. B1, entirely in the frontcourt, bats the ball such that it bounces off A1's leg.

This is the exact play that should demonstrate the fact that the logic behind the 07/08 interp is flawed beyond assistance.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, how will you call the following play?

A1 dribbling (or holding) in the backcourt near/on/straddling the division line. B1, entirely in the frontcourt, bats the ball such that it bounces off A1's leg.

Ya this is a 1/10,000 play realistically. In this close of a play if I recognize this then its a BC.

[JRutledge]

We need to stop paying attention to interpretations that are years old and have clear contradictions to the actual rule. It really is that simple as far as I am concerned.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We need to stop paying attention to interpretations that are years old and have clear contradictions to the actual rule. It really is that simple as far as I am concerned.

Peace

You know I agree with this statement. Why would the FED not just can this stupid interp?

[Nevadaref]

Do you realize that the person who was the NFHS basketball rules editor when the interp was issued is no longer working there and a new person has taken over?
It is likely that the new person isn't even aware of the old interp. If that's the case, then how can this person issue a statement nixing it?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Ya this is a 1/10,000 play realistically. In this close of a play if I recognize this then its a BC.

It may not be common, but it was created simply to expose the flaw in the rule. There are plenty more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

You know I agree with this statement. Why would the FED not just can this stupid interp?

Who said they didn't? It is this site that holds onto these interpretations. I have never seen anyone ever reference these interpretations unless you have them in a file somewhere on your computer. Otherwise if it is not in the casebook or the current year, the NF is doing a lot of faith recognition to hope we remember what was done 3 or 4 years ago, let alone 5 to 10 years ago.

Peace