Straddling the division line

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

How did I miss that? Great that we thought alike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Is the only way to get Schrödinger with that umlaut to copy and paste?

Just asking.

Peace

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

No. the Ball has BC status then, when it bounces, it has FC status. When it returns to A1, it then has BC status.

It is only in one place at a time.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. the Ball has BC status then, when it bounces, it has FC status. When it returns to A1, it then has BC status.

It is only in one place at a time.

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.

[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.