backcourt question from Rulebox

[joelpoli]

A–1, who has the ball in the frontcourt passes the ball toward A–2. B–2 bats the ball to the floor in A’s frontcourt so it bounces toward the backcourt. A–1 runs into A’s backcourt and catches the ball before it strikes the floor.

The official rules this a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?

[Raymond]

coachesNrefs, where are you?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[bballref3966]

By rule (no) or by NFHS interpretation (yes)?

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)

The bolded portion is what causes issues because the rule book doesn't state that "causing the ball to have backcourt status" is a violation.

[wyo96]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

By rule (no) or by NFHS interpretation (yes)?

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)

The bolded portion is what causes issues because the rule book doesn't state that "causing the ball to have backcourt status" is a violation.

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

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by dave9819

yes - the ball does not gain backcourt status until it touches the backcourt or a player with backcourt status touches it. Since the ball gained backcourt status as a result of a1 catching the ball in the backcourt, it is a backcourt violation.

Had the ball touched the floor in backcourt and then is caught by a1, it would not be a backcourt status since b was the last to touch the ball prior to the ball gaining backcourt status.

no

[Dave9819]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

no

Why?

[just another ref]

To have a violation, A has to be last to touch in frontcourt and first to touch in backcourt.

[Dave9819]

Originally Posted by just another ref

To have a violation, A has to be last to touch in frontcourt and first to touch in backcourt.

Ah, that's right! My mistake.

[joelpoli]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

To have a violation, A has to be last to touch in frontcourt and first to touch in backcourt.

Team A just has to be the last to touch when the ball had FC status, Team A's players do not have to touch the ball in the FC.

1) A1, in BC, throws pass that hits official standing in FC, ball bounces into BC, A2 retrieves ball...Violation

2) A1, in BC, throws pass that has backspin on it, it bounces in FC, and A2 standing in BC catches ball...violation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Team A just has to be the last to touch when the ball had FC status, Team A's players do not have to touch the ball in the FC.

Yeah, what he said.