Backcourt Violation?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Spence

You ignored the question I asked.

If the ball never touched the backcourt i.e. the floor then who was the last to touch it when it had FC status?

The old case play was something like this: A1 is in control in his BC passes the ball and B1 standing in FC bats ball out of air back to A1. They said it was a violation because ball had FC status when A1 caught it so he was last to touch and also had back court status because he was standing in BC. Simultaneously.

As Adam said, the rule says BEFORE. At most, we have the ball simultaneously in FC and BC when A1 touches it. The rule says player can't be first to touch ball after it been in team control in FC if she or teammate last touched ball in FC BEFORE it went to BC. This is simultaneous, not before. i don't have a violation.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The old case play was something like this: A1 is in control in his BC passes the ball and B1 standing in FC bats ball out of air back to A1. They said it was a violation because ball had FC status when A1 caught it so he was last to touch and also had back court status because he was standing in BC. Simultaneously.

As Adam said, the rule says BEFORE. At most, we have the ball simultaneously in FC and BC when A1 touches it. The rule says player can't be first to touch ball after it been in team control in FC if she or teammate last touched ball in FC BEFORE it went to BC. This is simultaneous, not before. i don't have a violation.

The case play you cite is not the one I am recalling.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Spence

The case play you cite is not the one I am recalling.

I don't recall your play. Principles the same.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't recall your play. Principles the same.

I'll pull out the old case books when I get home to see if I can find it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Spence

I'll pull out the old case books when I get home to see if I can find it.

You won't find it in any Case Book. It was an online interp issued in the 2007-08 season. I agree with Camron and others here that the author of this interp didn't understand the text of the actual rule and issued an incorrect ruling.

From the 2007-08 NFHS Basketball Interpretations:

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)

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You won't find it in any Case Book. It was an online interp issued in the 2007-08 season. I agree with Camron and others here that the author of this interp didn't understand the text of the actual rule and issued an incorrect ruling.

From the 2007-08 NFHS Basketball Interpretations:

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)

Thanks. That's the one.

Has that been rescinded?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Spence

Thanks. That's the one.

Has that been rescinded?

Not officially. It should have been. But the consensus is that it is not consistent with the rules and can not be correct by any reading of the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

Thanks. That's the one.

Has that been rescinded?

It disappeared without comment, never to be repeated again. Honestly, many of us ignored it in 07-08 since it was completely counter to the rules without any justification.

The logic of that ruling leads to all sorts of crazy rulings.