Backcourt Violation?
 

I seem to remember an old case play on this.

Team A has ball in FC. B1 smacks the ball down into the FC and then it bounces over the center line. A1 catches the ball while in the back court before the ball bounces in the backcourt.

I seem to remember this being a backcourt violation. Am I remembering correctly?

The logic of the old interp (2007) would have this be a violation. The rule as written requires that A be the last to touch the ball "before" it goes into the BC. That requirement is not met by any reasonable definition of "before."

And if it was a violation, it would also be a violation if A1 was holding or dribbling the ball in the BC as long as B1 was standing in the FC.

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the
frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before
it went to the backcourt.

At what point is the ball in the backcourt in my example? When it's caught by A1 , correct? So the question is regarding the ball not touching the BC. It's not in the BC until it's caught by A1. I'm sure there was an old case play on this but can't find it.

I think THIS should answer your question, no? If B is the last to touch it, wouldn't it make it a legal touch for A to then touch it in BC? BC is the weakest of my rules knowledge, so I'm just asking here.

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?

That would be B, because as soon as A caught it, it gained BC status. The last to touch before it went to the BC was B.

I missed the point of your question, and skipped over the fact that the ball had not obtained backcourt status. Let me ask you this:
If A1 in BC passes to A2 in FC, but the ball does not bounce, does the ball have FC status?

Yes.

So B1 is the last to touch it while it has FC status before A1 gathers the ball in the BC, giving the ball BC status.

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the
frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before
it went to the backcourt.

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.

Additionally, if the player had allowed the ball to touch the floor in team A's backcourt, thus obtaining backcourt status before that player touched the ball, no violation would occur.

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.

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.

Look at it another way: If B1 bounces a ball over an OOB line and A1 catches it before it lands, is the ball already OOB or only when A1 catches it?

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

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

No it IS NOT.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

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

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

[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.

And simply wrong.

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.

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)

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;995356]Yep, I tell people that something which occurs simultaneously with something else certainly didn't happen before it. That usually ends the discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

IAABO, Not NFHS ...
 

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

I've Got A Bridge In Brooklyn For Sale ...
 

Aw. C'mon. You can trust me.

Here is another thought. Art 1. Player shall not be first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the FC if HE, SHE or a TEAMMATE last touched or was touched by the ball IN THE FC before it went to the BC.

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.

What is the point you're trying to make? The location of the player and the status of the ball when he touches it are one and the same.

When A2 touches the ball he is in the BC. The fact that the ball had FC status and simultaneously gained BC status with A2 touch doesn't matter because A2 is unquestionably in the BC when he touches. He cannot be the last to touch in FC because he's physically in the BC.

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.

I think everybody agrees with you on this. (except whoever wrote the infamous interp) A single player CAN do both things, but not at the same time.

I think what has been claimed is that because The ball has FC status when A2 touches it he is the last person to touch it in FC before it went to BC. We have said this happens simultaneously so A2 cannot be last to touch it BEFORE it goes BC. That focuses on status of ball.

What I am saying is looking at the wording in rule it could be that the physical location of the player is what matters. The last person to touch ball IN THE FC refers to where the player is located at time of touch. A2 is not physically located in FC so he isn't last to touch it in FC.

The fact that the ball in the air has FC status doesn't matter.

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.

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.

It's basically Schrödinger's back court interpretation.

This is an interp I conveniently forget I have ever seen since there is not only no rule backing for such an interpretation but it's also highly illogical.

Yes, this is exactly the play I have presented in the past to demonstrate the silliness of that erroneous interpretation.

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.

I guess it is. ;D

What also makes the interpretation silly, is they give no recognition a rule that states the ball touching a player is THE SAME as touching the floor in that spot. If it is not a bc violation if the ball hits the floor first, and a touching the ball is the same as the ball hitting the floor, how can 1 be a violation and 1 not?
They pay no mind to the intent of the rule.
I wonder what the NCAA interpretation would be

The closest plays I could find from the 2016-17 NCAA Men's Casebook:

From what I read, the underlying factor is there must also be player control with the ball (as well as team control) in order for a BC violation.

Yes...on a throw-in.

The underlying element is that player control must first be established inbounds when play resumes with a throw-in before a backcourt violation can occur.
The NFHS published the same ruling as a POE.

PS the NCAA should have written "muffs" instead of "fumbles" in the final play.

From NCAAW "Ask Jon:"

DATE:

1/22/2015

RULE:

9-13-4

QUESTION:

A January 2015 Referee Magazine play has generated a great deal of discussion among Iowa WBB officials. Here's the play: Player and team control have been established in the front court. A1 passes to A2 in the front court and the ball is deflected up into the air by B1. A3 recovers the ball, which is still in the air, with both feet on the court in the back court. Is this a violation? Operating on the principle of last to touch/first to touch, it seems this should be legal. The defense was last to touch and caused the ball to go into the back court, but it technically still had front court status (because it is still in the air) when it was recovered by the offense - first to touch in the back court.

ANSWER (REVISED):

When we talk about a ball being returned from a team's frontcourt to its backcourt, the key as to whether or not we will have a violation rests with whether or not a member of that team was the last to touch the ball in their frontcourt and the first to touch the ball in its backcourt (9-13.4). In your play, B1 is the last player to touch the ball in Team A's front court, so any member of Team A may touch or secure control of the ball in Team A's backcourt.

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.

Even with the article directly addressing this play, it is still covered under the last to touch before/first to touch after article. IIRC, the 2nd article wasn't always part of the rule but was added to ensure clarity.