Backcourt Violation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The "in the FC" language refers to the location of the player when he or she touches the ball. Not the status of the ball. In your play team A has control in FC. B1, located in FC, deflects ball into air. A2 steps into BC. He is now IN THE BC, not the FC. He catches ball in air. Yes the ball had FC status and simultaneously gets BC status when he touches it. But A2 was clearly in the BC when he touched the ball. B1 was the last person located in the FC to touch the ball.

Let me know if there is a hole in this thought.

I disagree...it is about the status of the ball. Team A can still violate without ever being in the frontcourt.

Example: A1 in the backcourt at the division line makes a bounce pass laterally across the court such that it bounces in the frontcourt. A2, also in the backcourt catches the ball. That is a violation and neither A1 nor A2 were ever in the frontcourt.


Back to your play...B1 was the last to touch a the ball that had frontcourt status before the ball returned to the backcourt where A2 was the first to touch the ball after the ball returned to the backcourt (touching it gave the ball backcourt status and A2 was still touching it a microsecond after first touching it...and more). Since B1 was the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt, it is not a violation.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree...it is about the status of the ball. Team A can still violate without ever being in the frontcourt.

Example: A1 in the backcourt at the division line makes a bounce pass laterally across the court such that it bounces in the frontcourt. A2, also in the backcourt catches the ball. That is a violation and neither A1 nor A2 were ever in the frontcourt.


.

This, above, is a violation under article 2 of the backcourt rule. I was looking only at Art 1. Just looking at art 1 grammar wise....Seems like the last touch needs to be by a player physically located in the FC.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree...it is about the status of the ball. Team A can still violate without ever being in the frontcourt.

Example: A1 in the backcourt at the division line makes a bounce pass laterally across the court such that it bounces in the frontcourt. A2, also in the backcourt catches the ball. That is a violation and neither A1 nor A2 were ever in the frontcourt.

That's also a BC violation but for different reason which would be causing ball to go from BC to FC and back to BC w/out touching a player.

In the OP, the status of the ball does not matter, It's when/where/and by whom it is touched.

I really don't see how a reasonable person could issue the interp. I know Referee Mag makes several errors but NFHS website?

OK, BigCat already pointed this out, I didn't mean to pile on. I didn't see the 2nd page. Simple rule, let's not complicate it or overthink it.

[kelvinsmerli]

No it IS NOT.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Ref25]

I had this debate in another forum. This type of play was taken to Peter Webb and Ms. Wynns, NFHS Editor who said ( IT IS A VIOLATION) since a changed the status of the ball to bc, of course ignoring the rule that says touching a player is the same as touching the floor.
I don't like it, but as per nfhs it is a backcourt violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ref25

I had this debate in another forum. This type of play was taken to Peter Webb and Ms. Wynns, NFHS Editor who said ( IT IS A VIOLATION) since a changed the status of the ball to bc, of course ignoring the rule that says touching a player is the same as touching the floor.
I don't like it, but as per nfhs it is a backcourt violation.

Sad that neither of those people understand the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Ref25

I had this debate in another forum. This type of play was taken to Peter Webb and Ms. Wynns, NFHS Editor who said ( IT IS A VIOLATION) since a changed the status of the ball to bc, of course ignoring the rule that says touching a player is the same as touching the floor.
I don't like it, but as per nfhs it is a backcourt violation.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sad that neither of those people understand the rule.

Seriously. That ruling was never correct and the rationale behind their ruling is also wrong.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Ref25

I had this debate in another forum. This type of play was taken to Peter Webb and Ms. Wynns, NFHS Editor who said ( IT IS A VIOLATION) since a changed the status of the ball to bc, of course ignoring the rule that says touching a player is the same as touching the floor.
I don't like it, but as per nfhs it is a backcourt violation.

I believe Peter Webb is retiring after this season. Let's wait and bring up this issue with the 'new' rules interpreter for IAABO.

Originally Posted by Ref25

I had this debate in another forum. This type of play was taken to Peter Webb and Ms. Wynns, NFHS Editor who said ( IT IS A VIOLATION) since a changed the status of the ball to bc, of course ignoring the rule that says touching a player is the same as touching the floor.
I don't like it, but as per nfhs it is a backcourt violation.

Source? Reference? Gonna need some proof on this one.

Don't know about Peter Webb but going to Mrs. Wynns for clarification on a rule is laughable. She is a suit that oversees the rules, that's it. The NFHS needs to hire some legit technical writers to clean up their BS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Source? Reference? Gonna need some proof on this one.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post993575

Originally Posted by BillyMac

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post993575

A link to your post is not the kind of real proof I am looking for.

[kelvinsmerli]

B sent it to b/c A1 in b/c gives b/c status on his/her touch.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Mbilica]

I ran this by my IAABO interpreter and his ruling is a backcourt violation

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mbilica

I ran this by my IAABO interpreter and his ruling is a backcourt violation

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yes, we know and have known their position for long time. Just don't agree with it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mbilica

I ran this by my IAABO interpreter and his ruling is a backcourt violation

Ask him about this play:
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt near the division line. B1 is defending A1 while standing fully in Team A's frontcourt. B1 reaches across the division line and bats the ball into A1's knee and the ball bounces away from the dribbler.
Is this a backcourt violation?

Now point out that the elements of that play are exactly the same as the one which you previously asked him. Team A has team control. When B1 bats the ball, the ball gains FC status while still in control on Team A. B1 knocked the ball in the air and it contacted A1 before touching the court in the backcourt. Therefore, when the ball struck A1's knee the status of the ball reverted to backcourt.

Hopefully, this will illustrate the silliness of the previous ruling. He would have to declare both situations to be backcourt violations to be consistent. My position, and that of most posters on this forum, is that neither situation is a violation.