Straddling the division line

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

I disagree. Not really arguing if it is or is not a BC violation however I do feel that the play is the same as:

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.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.

The difference is that in Camron's play, A was clearly the last to touch before the ball went to the BC so it's clearly a violation.


In your play B was the last to touch the ball in the FC (I recognize that's not the specific criterion involved in the rule), so the only way to get the violation on A is to have this "simultaneous last / first touch" issue.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The difference is that in Camron's play, A was clearly the last to touch before the ball went to the BC so it's clearly a violation.


In your play B was the last to touch the ball in the FC (I recognize that's not the specific criterion involved in the rule), so the only way to get the violation on A is to have this "simultaneous last / first touch" issue.

Sure, ergo, Schrodinger in both plays

JMO.

[Hawkeyes]

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.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.[/QUOTE]

This play is different because Team A never had team possession in their front court. Team possession in the front court is key.

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.

Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.

Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.

Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.

Not arguing your broader point about the wording and poor interpretation - I don't like it either; but your above scenarios don't have team A with possession in their front court.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

Not arguing your broader point about the wording and poor interpretation - I don't like it either; but your above scenarios don't have team A with possession in their front court.

If by "possession" you mean "Team Control" then, yes, they do. A has TC. TC doesn't end until there's a try, or the ball becomes dead, or B gains control. So, when the ball reaches the FC (and it does in all the examples), A has TC in the FC.

If by "possession" you mean someone from A is in PC and is in the FC -- well, you're right. But, that's not part of the rule.

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If by "possession" you mean "Team Control" then, yes, they do. A has TC. TC doesn't end until there's a try, or the ball becomes dead, or B gains control. So, when the ball reaches the FC (and it does in all the examples), A has TC in the FC.

If by "possession" you mean someone from A is in PC and is in the FC -- well, you're right. But, that's not part of the rule.

My mistake.
Team A must have established team control in their front court. Your plays involved players still in their back court (with possession of the ball).
Therefore your plays cannot be ruled BC violations.
With you plays, I don't if I keep counting ten seconds or not?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

My mistake.
Team A must have established team control in their front court. Your plays involved players still in their back court (with possession of the ball).
Therefore your plays cannot be ruled BC violations.
With you plays, I don't if I keep counting ten seconds or not?

They did have team control in the FC. I am confused at what you are saying. Team A had team control in the BC and as soon as it hit something in the FC, then they had team control in the FC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

My mistake.
Team A must have established team control in their front court. Your plays involved players still in their back court (with possession of the ball).
Therefore your plays cannot be ruled BC violations.
With you plays, I don't if I keep counting ten seconds or not?

Yes, you stop counting 10 seconds. SO, the ball must be in the FC. And, Team A has control (or you woulnd't have been counting in the first place). That's sufficient for the rule (or it will be once we add "the ball returns to the BC" and "A is the first to touch.")

A never needs to touch the ball in the FC.

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, you stop counting 10 seconds. SO, the ball must be in the FC. And, Team A has control (or you woulnd't have been counting in the first place). That's sufficient for the rule (or it will be once we add "the ball returns to the BC" and "A is the first to touch.")

A never needs to touch the ball in the FC.

I don't think the two things are the same.
It is possible for the ball to be in the front court, but not in the control of team A.
I'm arguing that the key to the rule is; team control in the front court. None of your scenarios have front court team control, so a back court isn't possible.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

I don't think the two things are the same.
It is possible for the ball to be in the front court, but not in the control of team A.
I'm arguing that the key to the rule is; team control in the front court. None of your scenarios have front court team control, so a back court isn't possible.

You apparently do not understand when TC ends AND /OR I am not doing a good enough job explaining it. So, I'll try again.

Do you agree that A has TC?

Do you agree that A remains in TC until there's a try, a dead ball, or B gains control?

Do you agree that none of those things happened?

So, when the ball reaches the FC, A has TC in the front court -- that's what the rule means. A does NOT need to have PC in the FC.

Here's an interp that might help:

SITUATION 1: A1 is straddling the division line after catching and possessing a pass from A2. A1 then fumbles the ball, so that the ball lands in A’s frontcourt. A1 then regains possession of the ball (still straddling the division line). RULING: A1, with Team A in control, caused the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and was the first player to touch the ball again in the backcourt. Therefore, a backcourt violation shall be called. (9-9 Note)

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You apparently do not understand when TC ends AND /OR I am not doing a good enough job explaining it. So, I'll try again.

Do you agree that A has TC?

Do you agree that A remains in TC until there's a try, a dead ball, or B gains control?

Do you agree that none of those things happened?

So, when the ball reaches the FC, A has TC in the front court -- that's what the rule means. A does NOT need to have PC in the FC.

Here's an interp that might help:

SITUATION 1: A1 is straddling the division line after catching and possessing a pass from A2. A1 then fumbles the ball, so that the ball lands in A’s frontcourt. A1 then regains possession of the ball (still straddling the division line). RULING: A1, with Team A in control, caused the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and was the first player to touch the ball again in the backcourt. Therefore, a backcourt violation shall be called. (9-9 Note)

I now know where the confusion is and it's my fault. I was intending to respond to Cameron Rust #91 and i thought it was your post.
If you read his rationale for the rule being wrong - his scenarios don't have team control in the front court.

Regarding the OP - I can live with the call of BC, though I likely would never have ruled it that way without this forum.

apologies for the confusion.

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.



Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.



Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.



Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.

Your scenarios do not have team control by team A in the front court, therefore cannot ever be a back court violation.
Team control in the front court is important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

Your scenarios do not have team control by team A in the front court, therefore cannot ever be a back court violation.
Team control in the front court is important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where's the emoji of me beating my head against the wall.

Under current (incorrect imo) Fed case play, the plays presented by Camron are indeed violations

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Where's the emoji of me beating my head against the wall.



Under current (incorrect imo) Fed case play, the plays presented by Camron are indeed violations

In Camron’s cases: Team A never has team control in the front court?

Team control would mean all three points in the front court - correct?
The OP begins in the front court with actual team control in the front court.
His scenarios begin with team control in the back court. Team control is never established in the front court.
I don’t like the NF interpretation, but I don’t see how his scenarios are remotely similar?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

Team control would mean all three points in the front court - correct?

No. That's PC (not TC), and only during a dribble.

If Camron's plays are not violations, it's because of the "last to touch" criterion, not because of the "TC" or the "front court" criteria.