Backcourt ...
 

This was discussed at a recent meeting.

A1 is dribbling in the backcourt and passes to A3 who jumps from the frontcourt and catches the pass in the air and lands with a) both feet in the backcourt b) one foot in the backcourt and one foot in the frontcourt.

Ruling: In scenario A, the official will be ruling this as a backcourt violation. In scenario B, this is not a backcourt violation.

I disagree the the B ruling.

If I'm correct, what could the well respected presenter possibly be confusing this with?

Am I missing something here?

You are correct, as described.

Billy:

I agree with you. Backcourt Violation in both (A) and (B). The Ball acquired Front Court Status the moment that A3 touched the Ball, and no matter with which Court (Front or Back) first in B, the moment A3's foot touched in Team A's Backcourt Team A has committed a BC Violation.

MTD, Sr.

They are OBVIOUSLY wrong in B. What would make someone who has been discussing rules here for almost 2 decades think there is any possibility they might be correct?

When I hear something as ridiculous as this, I stop the conversation and say "show me in the books." I refuse to listen to anything else they have to say on the subject.

There is no excuse for you doubting the correct ruling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Criticism ...
 

Just wanted to be 100 plus % sure before I emailed a criticism to a very powerful and influential member of my local, state, and international organization.

Sent a polite and respectful email criticism (as well as some compliments) and have, thus far, been ignored.

This person hates "getting into to weeds" and "down rabbit holes" (which I understand, but this error is neither), and is extremely well prepared for most rule discussions, but is sometimes not very good when discussing "off the cuff" pop up questions.

I'm still waiting for an answer to a question about our Refresher Exam emailed a month ago.

In fact, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question about last year's Refresher Exam.

Some people hate being questioned and also hate admitting mistakes.

Same person told us that our new Connecticut Sit A Tick Technical Foul rule was for all player technical fouls, and more recently told us that it was only for unsporting technical fouls, without admitting that this was a major change from what we were previously told.

And, of course, those that attended the first meeting, and didn't attend the second meeting, and don't bother to check our local website and get "into the weeds" (requiring several clicks), won't know this.

Same person often tells us to do something "by the book" and fails to broach the "gray areas" we often see in "real games", kind of like, "Do as I say, not as I do", but without ever saying it, or even implying it (not even in code).

All that is fine, but irrelevant. Why did you have to come here to confirm a rule that you should know off the top of your head?

It bothers me when veteran officials (including you quite often) space out on basic rules knowledge because somebody "respected" botches the rule themselves.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Confidence ...
 

Lack of confidence in the face of a much, much, higher authority (can't get any much higher than this person), especially one (who always exudes extreme confidence) who hates being questioned.

Good thing that I don't lack such confidence (in regard to partners, coaches, players, and fans) in my games.

What do power and authority have to do with rules knowledge? What is he going to do, take away your schedule and your luncht breaks? Come on Billy. Apparently nobody in your organization is a go-to person for rules, based on all these stories you tell.

Secondly, just because you're reluctant to correct him doesn't mean you need to doubt basic rules knowledge. And that one is as basic as it gets for somebody with your experience. There is no excuse for that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Shut Out ...
 

Shut me out. Not answer my questions, in either a meeting setting, or in private emails.

Don't believe me, it's already happened.

I'm considered the "unofficial rules guy" around here. I get tons of rules and mechanics questions every year.

When I lose access to such a "higher authority", I also lose my ability to get clarifications (on more nuanced situations than this) for my friends.

I Couldn't Sit On It ...
 

I had to overcome my reluctance in this case because the interpretation was out there for everybody to see and for some to make the same mistake in a game. I just couldn't sit on it.

I'm the rules guy in my area and I'm in no position of authority or assigning. I'm that guy because I proved over and over again I study and know the rules. Not bc of some title bestowed on me.

If you are the rules guy in your organization, then the bosses should be coming to you for the answers, not the other way around.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No violation in Play B (and Play A) if the throw came from a Throw-in. Rule 9-9-3

Confused ...
 

I'm fairly certain that that's where this "higher authority" became confused.