backcourt question from Rulebox

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

So, a practical question from a non-re with a kid who plays. In the scenario here, is the end result that some officials are going to call it a BC violation because of the interp and others are going to no-call it because the interp makes not a lick of sense?

Yep.

[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.