backcourt question from Rulebox
 

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?

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.

coachesNrefs, where are you?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Why?

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.

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

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

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.

A player can only have one status or the other. When the ball touches the player it instantly gains the status of that player.

Yeah, what he said.

No, but even if it did the rule says this....

* last to touch BEFORE the ball returns the the backcourt
* first to touch AFTER the ball returns to the backcourt

There is a time at which the ball returns to the backcourt....the instant it touches the floor or player in the backcourt.

So, if the ball, having been deflected by team B, next touches A1 who is in the backcourt, who was the last person to touch it before that point? Team B. No violation.

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.

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.

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.

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:eek:

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.

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.

Just the rule itself.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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

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