Straddling the division line

[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.