Back court
 

Just received this message from Abiter. NFHS

Much discussion is taking place in the various social media and other places about the follow situation. If you have means of contacting your officials to get them the official ruling, it would be help.

Here is the play...
. Team A has Team Control in their frontcourt.
. Team B deflects a pass into the air and over the backcourt.
. A3 catches the ball in his/her backcourt, before the ball makes contact with the floor in the backcourt.
RULING:
This is a backcourt violation, since Team A had Team Control in their frontcourt and A3 was the first to touch a ball that still had frontcourt status while A3 was in the backcourt. The deflection of the ball by B does not change the status of the ball.
This causes A to be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch in the backcourt. The ball continued to have backcourt status. Similar to A3 catching the ball while standing out-of-bounds.

Thank you.


Theresia D. Wynns
Director of Sports and Officials
National Federation of State High School Associations
PO Box 690 | Indianapolis, IN 46206

I'll call it the way they want, but it doesn't make sense. I mean, the player allowing the ball to bounce in the backcourt before touching it shouldn't make the difference between a legal play and a violation.

Basically, it gives Team B (in this situation) an advantage of being able to grab the ball out of the air and go, while Team A has to wait for it to bounce.

Exception needed? I think so.

An EXCEPTION isn't needed, a rational interpretation is. As has been discussed ad nauseum on here, this interpretation is not at all compelled by the language of the rule.

I don't doubt you regarding this apparent communication from T. Wynns. But can you post a link to the document you've copied and pasted? I can't find it on the NFHS Arbiter Hub.

The one time I ever see this play, I'm more likely to remember the rule the way it's written than the interpretation given here. If I get marked down for it, my career will survive.

Since we all agree that A3 is in his backcourt when he touches the ball, the ruling is incorrect.

The ruling should be the same as 9.9.1 Situation C. A3 is not the last player to touch the ball in the frontcourt. He is the first player to touch it in the backcourt. That is not illegal.

The issue is that the ball has front court status when the A3 touched it, so, A3 caused the ball to have backcourt status. If he lets it bounce, then the floor gives the ball backcourt status and now the last to touch it is the defender.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Look at Article 1. Grammar tells me that it is referring to the location of the PLAYER when he touches the ball. The ball having FC status in article 1 isnt key to this issue. A player standing in the BC who touches a ball with FC status does not change the player's location. He is in the BC still. So while the ball has FC status when he touches it , that does not magically change the player's BC location. He is not in the FC so cannot be the last player IN THE FC to touch ball.

The mistake I see is interpreters are reading it to say last player to touch "a ball located in the FC." That's not what rule says.

I'm aware of the status of the ball. I'm also aware of the text of the rule. Note the use of the word "before" in 9-9-1. Before does not equate to simultaneous.
In the play provided, the status of the ball changes from frontcourt to backcourt at the same time as A3 touches it while standing in his backcourt. The rule requires that a member of Team A be the last to touch the ball in frontcourt BEFORE it goes to the backcourt in order for a violation to occur. In this play, A3's touch is simultaneous with the ball going to the backcourt, not before. That doesn't mesh with the rule. The author wants you to accept that A3 is doing two things with one touch--being both the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. The rule requires two different points in time and the author can't have it both ways.

If we go back to the previous touch of the ball before A3's, we see that the simple answer is that the last touch in the frontcourt in this scenario was by a member of Team B. A3 merely has the first touch in the backcourt.

I agree with your interpretation. Unfortunately my interpreter does not.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Unfortunate for you. Of course, this play may happen twice a season.

I was also officiating when this incorrect interp was first issued for the 2007-08 season. It was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

State of Missouri office just sent an email reiterating the interp that this is to be called a backcourt violation.

I'm sure I'll be mindful of this when it never happens to me. Or not.

Sorry Abut The Mixed Metaphors ...
 

First IAABO Coordinator of Interpreters, Peter Webb, on a Refresher Exam question, then NFHS Director of Sports and Officials, Theresia D. Wynns, and now the State of Missouri interscholastic sports governing body.

They're circling the wagons and digging in for the long haul. This will be one tough nut to crack.

I have always made the "simultaneous" is not "before" argument. Can you and others look at my post above yours and tell me what you think about that. "In FC refers to location of player, not status of ball. Thx

I respectfully disagree and will NOT be calling that a backcourt violation. I agree that it gives Team B the advantage of being able to go after the ball more aggressively.

Anybody on here disagree with my opinion?

I would present the other plays that fit the same logic and see if they want to be consistent.

If it were a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status, it would be a violation whenever A threw the ball into the backcourt and the ball touched the floor....but causing the ball to have backcourt status isn't a violation.

It amazes me how people try to fit the most technical definition into a ruling....and just make it nonsensical.

If I were king, I would eliminate all backcourt violations where B hits the ball off A in the frontcourt and A is the first to touch, too.

Or we could be really silly and make the division OOB once the ball and player is established in a controlling team's front court.

Makes for an awfully short game if the ball can never go to the other end.:eek:

But the interpretation really does seem bent on treating the back court as OOB: just as a player who is OOB and is hit by a ball before it touches the floor "causes" the ball to go OOB, the interp makes the player responsible if the ball touches him before it touches the floor in the back court.

But not really since the ball hitting the floor doesn't create a violation.

I agree this is not a violation and I saw a funny one this season kind of dealing with this. Team A had control in their frontcourt. A Team B player knocked it away, it bounced in the frontcourt toward the backcourt in the air. The Team A player ran back and got right to the ball and then waited for it to bounce in the backcourt before he picked it up. I don't in any way believe he knows this rule interpretation, but it was still kind of funny because I remembered the conversation about this on this forum before. The Team B player was running after it too and almost got to it first. That play really shows why it isn't fair to Team A to make them wait to pick it up, even though the B player is the one who knocked it into the backcourt in the first place.

That's a great point. Thanks for posting that situation!