Backcourt Violation?

[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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE=Rob1968;995339]The ball maintains frontcourt status while in the air, and so, when the team A player, standing in backcourt is first to touch the ball, that player becomes the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and in the same instant, he/she is the first to touch the ball when it obtains backcourt status.
/QUOTE]
That is not correct.

The rule requires that A be the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returns to the backcourt. "Before" is a very clear word. Touching it in the backcourt is not touching it before touching it in the backcourt.

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The difficulty in the logic is that the same instant of touching constitutes both a frontcourt and a backcourt status. Thus, that logic is seen as cumbersome, faulty, and difficult to explain to observers, especially coaches.

And simply wrong.

[Adam]

If the violation was for causing the ball to have BC status, this would be a violation.

That's not what the rule is, though.

[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)

[Nevadaref]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;995356]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The ball maintains frontcourt status while in the air, and so, when the team A player, standing in backcourt is first to touch the ball, that player becomes the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and in the same instant, he/she is the first to touch the ball when it obtains backcourt status.
/QUOTE]

The rule requires that A be the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returns to the backcourt. "Before" is a very clear word. Touching it in the backcourt is not touching it before touching it in the backcourt.

Yep, I tell people that something which occurs simultaneously with something else certainly didn't happen before it. That usually ends the discussion.

[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.

[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