I've got nothing on this. But I think this is not the same as the other play. I think the player causes the ball to go to the BC because he is touching a ball that has not reached FC status on its own and then touches the ball. In other words causing the ball to be in the BC, which would be a BC violation.

I get the rub here, but I also think this is a case play and the NF has determined this is a violation, so I would go with a violation. That is what interpretations are supposed to do, clarify holes in the wording of the rules.

Peace

Sorry about the sentence...it says what you're saying (I think).

It is entirely possible to have a backcourt violation without every having the the offensive team touch the ball in the frontcourt (or, in a different play, backcourt).

EXAMPLE:

A1, in the backcourt, throws a bounce pass across the court to A2, who is also in the backcourt. However, the bounce during the pass was in the frontcourt. Team control...ball obtains frontcourt status...ball returns the backcourt when caught by A2 (or maybe a 2nd bounce occurred in the BC before A2 caught it).

A1 was the last to touch BEFORE the ball returned to the backcourt. A2 was the first to touch AFTER it returned. Yet, neither touched it in the frontcourt.

When the ball goes from frontcourt to the backcourt, you have to ask 3 things:
1. Was there team control inbounds at the time?
2. Was team A the last to touch it (anywhere) before it did so?
3. Was team A the next to touch it (anywhere) after it did so?

Yes to all is a violation. No to any is legal.

The location of the touch is irrelevant to a backcourt violation. You don't have to touch the ball while it's in the backcourt. You don't have to touch the ball while you're in the backcourt.

You have to be the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAS BEEN in the backcourt. That's why the timing is more important than the location of the touch. For example:

A1 is trapped in the frontcourt near the division line. A1 extends the ball over the backcourt in order to throw a bounce pass around the trap. The bounce pass touches the division line and then is caught be A2 who is standing in the frontcourt.

This is a backcourt violation even though no one touched the ball while it was in the backcourt. However, A2 was the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAD BEEN in the backcourt. TWEET!

By NFHS interp, this is a violation. In NCAAW (and I think NCAAM), it's not.

I think this is the intent of the rule and the interpretation. Think of this example:

A1, in front court, passes the ball which B1 deflects. The ball bounces closely and parallel to the division line, staying in front court. A1 runs into the back court. With both feet in the backcourt, and the ball still in front court, A1 reaches over the division line and touches/possesses the ball.

I don't see how this couldn't be a backcourt violation. A1 clearly causes the ball to have backcourt status. Just as A1 would cause the ball to have backcourt status if straddling the division line. Just as A1 would cause the ball to have back court status if the deflection caused the ball to bounce in front court then in the air over the backcourt where A1 touches the ball before it obtains back court status.

If this truly is the intent, it could and should be written more clearly in the rules.

Thank you scrapper. I understand the rules. The OP was a play where the ball was being dribbled in the FC by A, deflected by B to a player straddling the line. I was giving Camron a hard time about word usage in his sentence.. "timing of touch relative to time..." Made me think too hard.

I don't understand how this is a violation in NFHS. The last to touch the ball when it gained FC status was team B (player B1's deflection of the pass), and the first to touch the ball when it gained BC status was team A (player A1 re-gaining control after the pass was deflected back to him by B1).

I agree with this 100%.

See this year's interps. It's almost exactly one of the plays.

(I agree it *should not* be a violation, but the NFHS has said that it is.)

See MTD earlier post. There is an nfhs interp that says when the A player straddling the line touches the ball he is last person to touch it in FC and first in BC. Simultaneous....I dont like it but it is there.

We're talking about a different play that was brought up. In this one A1 is not straddling the line.

From Nevada...

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches. What is your ruling?

Sorry thought you were on original play. The reasoning is same here and this is the interp play. Ball gets FC status when B1 touches it. When it goes back to A1 his catch of the ball is viewed as the last to touch and first to touch...simultaneously. Again i dont like it.

it doesn't matter if A1 is straddling the line or has both feet in the BC -- either way, A1 is in the BC and the logic (or the NFHS-version of the logic) is the same.

I thought that the logic was that by straddling the line A1 is at the same time the last to touch in FC and first to touch in BC... hence the violation. In the play I've been discussing A1 has never touched the FC. I don't see how these two plays are being treated the same.

Now, in my play, if that's what the interp says then ok. But if we're saying my play is that way because of that interp then I'm not convinced.