Straddling the division line

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

Doesn't matter.

A had PC inbounds.

The ball reached the FC.

A1 was (in the plays being discussed) touched the ball in the air, coming from the FC while A1 was in the BC and before the ball hit the floor in the BC.

All such plays are violations in NFHS.

These plays are NOT violations in NCAA.

If the ball hits the floor first in the BC (and was deflected by B in the FC), then these plays are not violations in FED.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Doesn't matter.

A had PC inbounds.

The ball reached the FC.

A1 was (in the plays being discussed) touched the ball in the air, coming from the FC while A1 was in the BC and before the ball hit the floor in the BC.

All such plays are violations in NFHS.

These plays are NOT violations in NCAA.

If the ball hits the floor first in the BC (and was deflected by B in the FC), then these plays are not violations in FED.

I can accept the argument that by straddling the line (therefore touching the FC) Team A simultaneously is the last to touch the ball while it had FC status and the first to touch the ball while it has BC status. But when A1 is not, nor has ever, touched the FC I don't see how you can say Team A was the last to touch the ball while it was in the FC.

The part about straddling the line is the key, because the player is touching both the FC and BC at the same time. If he's not straddling the line the interp does not seem to apply.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I can accept the argument that by straddling the line (therefore touching the FC) Team A simultaneously is the last to touch the ball while it had FC status and the first to touch the ball while it has BC status. But when A1 is not, nor has ever, touched the FC I don't see how you can say Team A was the last to touch the ball while it was in the FC.

The part about straddling the line is the key, because the player is touching both the FC and BC at the same time. If he's not straddling the line the interp does not seem to apply.

When A1 is straddling the line, A is in the BC. Logically, it's the same as A having both feet in the BC.

The interp has nothing to do with A's position other than being in the BC.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

When A1 is straddling the line, A is in the BC. Logically, it's the same as A having both feet in the BC.

The interp has nothing to do with A's position other than being in the BC.

The way it's been described is that A1 having a foot in the FC is a big reason why it's interpreted the way it is. A1 is simultaneously in the FC and BC. If A1 was never in the FC, how can you possibly say he was the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

Yeah, eloquent writing is not among my skill set.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If A1 was never in the FC, how can you possibly say he was the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

Easy...A1, from the backcourt, throws a pass that bounces in the FC. As soon as it bounces, the ball has FC status. A1 was the last to touch the ball that now has FC status and A1 was never in the FC.

Now, lets say that such a pass was across the court where the bounce was just in the FC just across the division line. Then, A2, also in the BC, then catches that pass.
When A2 catches the the ball, it gains BC status again due to A2's location. Violation.

That pass could also bounce off an official or the backboard and return to the backcourt without otherwise being touched. Those would be unlikely scenarios, however.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Easy...A1, from the backcourt, throws a pass that bounces in the FC. As soon as it bounces, the ball has FC status. A1 was the last to touch the ball that now has FC status and A1 was never in the FC.

Now, lets say that such a pass was across the court where the bounce was just in the FC just across the division line. Then, A2, also in the BC, then catches that pass.
When A2 catches the the ball, it gains BC status again due to A2's location. Violation.

That pass could also bounce off an official or the backboard and return to the backcourt without otherwise being touched. Those would be unlikely scenarios, however.

There was no bounce. Can we please stick with the play being discussed here.

B1 touches the ball in the air, after jumping from the FC. Why is B1 not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

There was no bounce. Can we please stick with the play being discussed here.

B1 touches the ball in the air, after jumping from the FC. Why is B1 not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Because they say so.

You want logic. But most agree the interp is illogical. But the interp says that by touching the ball that has FC status, the player in the backcourt is simultaneously the last to touch the ball with FC status and the first to touch with BC status. So it's a violation. Because they say so. You can read and reread and reread the text of the rule, and you'll never get there. It's what the interp says, whether it makes any sense or not.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Because they say so.

You want logic. But most agree the interp is illogical. But the interp says that by touching the ball that has FC status, the player in the backcourt is simultaneously the last to touch the ball with FC status and the first to touch with BC status. So it's a violation. Because they say so. You can read and reread and reread the text of the rule, and you'll never get there. It's what the interp says, whether it makes any sense or not.

Thank you. This is what I've needed to hear. Not anyone's attempts to make sense of the rule, just say "that's the rule". And do so without bringing up similar, but not exact, interpretations or examples. That just confuses the matter or makes me think we're talking about different plays and thus the rulings are not necessarily the same.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The way it's been described is that A1 having a foot in the FC is a big reason why it's interpreted the way it is.

I don't recall it being discussed that way (I agree that you've interpreted it that way, maybe from reading something.) That way of thinking, though, is wrong, no matter which interp (NCAA or FED) you ascribe to.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't recall it being discussed that way (I agree that you've interpreted it that way, maybe from reading something.) That way of thinking, though, is wrong, no matter which interp (NCAA or FED) you ascribe to.

Talk about eye-opening. Glad this play never came up for me.

[walt]

While I don't agree, I called and spoke to a member of the NFHS rules committee. He is a personal friend and he is also one of the 4 IAABO national interpreters (and I know that means nothing to some here ). He told me the rationale for the ruling is that the player straddling the line is simultaneously the last person to touch in the frontcourt and the first person to touch in the backcourt and therefore this is to be ruled a backcourt violation in NFHS. For the record, he disagrees but said he has been overruled on this discussion many times as it is a question that is continually submitted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

There was no bounce. Can we please stick with the play being discussed here.

I ready your question as generic, not a specific to a play not mentioned. I don't go back and read an entire thread to see what you might or might not be talking about.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

B1 touches the ball in the air, after jumping from the FC. Why is B1 not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

He was. B1, in the air, has FC status. When B1 touches the ball, B1 does so effectively from the frontcourt. Thus, when it is then caught or touched by A1, it should not be a violation (by rule).

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I ready your question as generic, not a specific to a play not mentioned. I don't go back and read an entire thread to see what you might or might not be talking about.



He was. B1, in the air, has FC status. When B1 touches the ball, B1 does so effectively from the frontcourt. Thus, when it is then caught or touched by A1, it should not be a violation (by rule).

1. If you're going to comment to a person I would think you'd check and make sure what he's talking about first.

2. B1 is not A1's teammate, so the touch by B1 from Team A's FC should not be the issue. If the Fed wants it to be a backcourt violation, then so be it, but there is zero logic behind what you're saying. The "last to touch, first to touch" thing involves players from the same team... not opposing ones.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

1. If you're going to comment to a person I would think you'd check and make sure what he's talking about first.

Your question appeared to be about what I answered. The discussion was wandering and was no longer just about the OP but about principles and what if's.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

2. B1 is not A1's teammate, so the touch by B1 from Team A's FC should not be the issue. If the Fed wants it to be a backcourt violation, then so be it, but there is zero logic behind what you're saying. The "last to touch, first to touch" thing involves players from the same team... not opposing ones.

Incorrect. "last to touch, first to touch" is exactly relevant. When a B player is the last to touch that ball BEFORE the ball gains BC status, A can no longer be the last to touch. Thus, it can't be a violation. That is what the rule says and has said for decades.