backcourt question from Rulebox

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.