Straddling the division line

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone can understand.

It isn't that we're just disagreeing with an interpretation. The interpretation itself contradicts the rule. As such, we have two opposing rulings, both of which can't be correct. We're going with the one that has been there for 50+ years vs. one that came out of nowhere. The new interpretation can't be correct without a rule change.

Do not tell me what I do not get. I just have been listening to people like yourself tell everyone how we must follow the NF and their interpretations, and when it does not fit the perfect knowledge you have of the rules we just agree with what you say now? Pick a lane!!!!

It makes no difference to me. I think people worry about these things too much anyway. This is not likely to happen in most situations because players are afraid of even being close to the line in the first place even when they are allowed by rule to be there. I just find the position you take as funny. Now you do not agree with the ruling, but when you do, "We cannot waiver or make up our own rules." OK. LOL!!!

Just like the other BC situation the NF made clear they wanted to stick with, I am going to call it that way. Maybe the rule will change when they realize how stupid it sounds. The best way to change a rule is to call it the way they want. I got enough juice to do that and do not care if someone does not like it. Let them argue with the interpretations and get them changed.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do not tell me what I do not get. I just have been listening to people like yourself tell everyone how we must follow the NF and their interpretations, and when it does not fit the perfect knowledge you have of the rules we just agree with what you say now? Pick a lane!!!!

Peace

You still don't get it...no surprise.

It isn't what I think here. I AM still saying follow the NFHS . The NFHS is just saying things that are contradictory. One of them is inconsistent with the rules and principles in many ways so it makes it easy to see for anyone that doesn't just want to pick a fight which on should be the correct one to apply.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You still don't get it...no surprise.

It isn't what I think here. I AM still saying follow the NFHS . The NFHS is just saying things that are contradictory. One of them is inconsistent with the rules and principles in many ways so it makes it easy to see for anyone that doesn't just want to pick a fight which on should be the correct one to apply.

I have been pointing out the NF contradictions for years. And people like you tell us how we must not waiver from their positions. Now we have to adhere to your sensibilities when the contradiction is too much for you to handle.

Look, none of us are likely to ever work with each other. We do not work in the other's states. We have to answer to those we work for and the NF certainly is not one of those people I have to answer to in any state I work for. We do not work in the same associations. So honestly who cares? I just find it funny when the people that love to get on their high horse all these years now want to get mad another contradiction or misinformation from the NF. Call it the way you can explain. Then again, this is the NF official interpretation. We know how important those things are to you. I clearly get it, I am just having fun watching.

Peace

[CJP]

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court, after the front court deflection by B, before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

I am much more on your side of this, but I also see the other side where the language is confusing. Either way that is what the NF has said is illegal, so guess what I am going to call when it happens? That is what interpretations are for right?

Peace

[CJP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am much more on your side of this, but I also see the other side where the language is confusing. Either way that is what the NF has said is illegal, so guess what I am going to call when it happens? That is what interpretations are for right?

Peace

I agree about confusion. I had to think about it for a while but came to an understanding. Although confusing, it is not contradictory.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

I agree about confusion. I had to think about it for a while but came to an understanding. Although confusing, it is not contradictory.

I agree. It really is not contradictory at all. It might be hard to understand as you said, but this player is in the BC and then touches a ball that never reached BC status.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court, after the front court deflection by B, before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

B is on the other team.
The interp says that the catch of the ball by A1 in his BC is both the last touch in the FC and the first touch in the BC. Problem is there's only one touch. Last and first means there are two touches. A last and then a first.....That's what 9-9-1 says. We dont have word simultaneous.
2. Also, grammatically, the wording of the rule about the last touch refers to the player's location. The last touch under 9-9-1 has to be by a player in FC.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by BigCat

B is on the other team.
The interp says that the catch of the ball by A1 in his BC is both the last touch in the FC and the first touch in the BC. Problem is there's only one touch. Last and first means there are two touches. A last and then a first.....That's what 9-9-1 says. We dont have word simultaneous.
2. Also, grammatically, the wording of the rule about the last touch refers to the player's location. The last touch under 9-9-1 has to be by a player in FC.

This year's case book says the play is legal but the ball took a bounce in the back court before A1 touched it. That is key to understanding the outcome of this.

If the ball does not take a bounce in the back court then it still has front court status because B1 touched it in the front court. So if A1 touches it before the bounce, while A1 is in the back court, then it is a violation.

[CJP]

If this situation plays out and you call a BC violation, I think coach on the violating team is going to lose his mind. It is the correct call but the coach is going to think otherwise.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by CJP

This year's case book says the play is legal but the ball took a bounce in the back court before A1 touched it. That is key to understanding the outcome of this.

If the ball does not take a bounce in the back court then it still has front court status because B1 touched it in the front court. So if A1 touches it before the bounce, while A1 is in the back court, then it is a violation.

Read the rule. I understand it completely. B is the last player in the FC to touch the ball. B is located in the FC. If you read the words an A player has to be the last to touch it in the FC. That portion of the rule is not talking about ball status/location. It refers to player location. When A catches it on the fly in the BC he is the first to touch it in the BC. The ball had FC status but that A player didnt. It was B who touched it last in the FC. Whether it bounces or not doesnt matter by the words of the rule. The interp is just wrong. Again, there's no simultaneous touching in the rule.

[Shane O]

Originally Posted by CJP

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court, after the front court deflection by B, before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

This is exactly how I see it too! I'm not even sure where the confusion lies???

I had a situation that would be similar to this this year.

A1 passing the ball around the perimeter to A2 while in the FC. B1 deflects the pass and the ball is heading for the BC. The ball is moving fairly fast and takes it's last bounce just before the division line in the FC. A2 runs 5 feet into the BC and secures the ball. The ball never bounced in the BC. I called the violation. The crowd didn't like it, lol, because it was deflected.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Shane O

This is exactly how I see it too! I'm not even sure where the confusion lies???

I had a situation that would be similar to this this year.

A1 passing the ball around the perimeter to A2 while in the FC. B1 deflects the pass and the ball is heading for the BC. The ball is moving fairly fast and takes it's last bounce just before the division line in the FC. A2 runs 5 feet into the BC and secures the ball. The ball never bounced in the BC. I called the violation. The crowd didn't like it, lol, because it was deflected.

The crowd didn't like it because the call was incorrect. Based on the rule...who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returned to the backcourt? Team B....no violation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The crowd didn't like it because the call was incorrect. Based on the rule...who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returned to the backcourt? Team B....no violation.

This is that play that's been talked about.

And from what I've read the interpretation is that A was both the last to touch the ball when it had FC status and the first to touch the ball when it gains BC status. Therefore a violation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Shane O]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The crowd didn't like it because the call was incorrect. Based on the rule...who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returned to the backcourt? Team B....no violation.

The ball still had front court status even though B1 was last to touch before A2 secured the ball in the BC. Thought is was a no brainer violation.

Would there be any difference if at the time A2 touches the deflected pass by B1, A2's foot was on the division line?