Straddling the division line

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shane O

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?

No. A2 is still in the BC (at least as I read your description of A2's location).

[Shane O]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. A2 is still in the BC (at least as I read your description of A2's location).

So then it would be a violation!

Below is the interp from NFHS which is exactly the play I had this year. If you notice in the interp they don't use wording describing first touch or last touch or anything like that, they just use the wording "caused the ball to have BC status" while still being in team control.

SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Shane O

So then it would be a violation!

Below is the interp from NFHS which is exactly the play I had this year. If you notice in the interp they don't use wording describing first touch or last touch or anything like that, they just use the wording "caused the ball to have BC status" while still being in team control.

SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

This is the entire point of the conversation. The interp does not follow the rule...not even close...Does not follow basic rules of grammar in the rule. The interp is wrong...in so many ways. see cameron post 70 and my 80.

[Shane O]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This is the entire point of the conversation. The interp does not follow the rule...not even close...Does not follow basic rules of grammar in the rule. The interp is wrong...in so many ways.

I do get that but just my own personal experience makes me feel the rule interpretation is how the game should be called. Maybe they can write the rule better to more coincide with the interpretation, lol.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Shane O

I do get that but just my own personal experience makes me feel the rule interpretation is how the game should be called. Maybe they can write the rule better to more coincide with the interpretation, lol.

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.

[Rich]

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.

Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That interpretation is utter nonsense. In no way does one touch occur in two places or at two different times, unless your name is Schrodinger.

Originally Posted by Rich

Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.

Yes indeed. Funny you should mention Schrödinger. You just put the umlaut on it that I didn't.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Rich

the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status.

A situation in a recent game brought this topic up again, sorry to re-hash.

Several feel that the ball cannot have FC and BC status "simultaneously". However, isn't that what happens when A1, in the BC, spins the ball so that it lands in the FC, and returns to him in the BC? I know that is regarding article 2 but still, it is a BC violation and the ball has that "Schrödinger " characteristic.

[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 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