Backcourt redux

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Smitty

The ball is in the backcourt when A2 touches it. Or tbuches it. Whichever. It was in the frontcourt before A2 touched it. But it's still not a violation because B was the last to touch it in the frontcourt.

A2 touches a ball with FC status while in the BC, in my mind A2 simultaneously was the last to touch and first to touch.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by blindzebra

A2 touches a ball with FC status while in the BC, in my mind A2 simultaneously was the last to touch and first to touch.

Really? I have a hard time with that one. BktBallRef - is that true? Which one of us is right?

[BktBallRef]

I think it's a violation. In fact, I had that exact play last Friday night and called it a violation. So I agree with BZ with regard to the "simultaneous" touching.

I wish the Fed would issue an interp or case play on this play. I know what JR posted. Jenkins, are you around? Whatcha think?

[shawn29]

My .02 is ...No violation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I think it's a violation. In fact, I had that exact play last Friday night and called it a violation. So I agree with BZ with regard to the "simultaneous" touching.

I wish the Fed would issue an interp or case play on this play. I know what JR posted. Jenkins, are you around? Whatcha think?

It seems to me that if what you're saying is right, then no A player can be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, no matter what happened in the front court. In other words, I don't understand what you're saying, I guess. Is it because the ball hasn't bounced in the backcourt yet? If it bounced, would it now have bc status, and then B would be the player that "caused" it to go into the bc? That seems way too complicated, in my opinion. I'm sure not going to call it if I can't explain it.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

It seems to me that if what you're saying is right, then no A player can be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, no matter what happened in the front court. In other words, I don't understand what you're saying, I guess. Is it because the ball hasn't bounced in the backcourt yet? If it bounced, would it now have bc status, and then B would be the player that "caused" it to go into the bc? That seems way too complicated, in my opinion. I'm sure not going to call it if I can't explain it.

No, that is not the case. The reason this is a violation is because the ball NEVER went into the BC off of B.

The ball that contacted B still has FC status until it hits the floor in the BC, or in this case an A player.

The case book play many are basing their argument on does not fit this situation, because A never had the ball in the FC. In this play they did.

What BBR is saying is this is just like A2 touching the ball right at the division line and then stepping into the back court.

[assignmentmaker]

This has gotten way informative.

The rules of the game are written, of necessity, in a meta-language, in this case, English. Thus some terms will unavoidably be undefined within the rules - even if we are willing to make the effort to try to define everything. It's the nature of things.

That being said, the 'Backcourt Violation' rule is not crisply written.

Here is my original scenario, rephrased but not changed:

"Team A is passing the ball among its players in the frontcourt when B1 bats the ball. The ball strikes the floor in the frontcourt then bounces above the floor over the backcourt. A2 runs into the backcourt and catches the ball in the air, before it hits the floor. Is this backcourt?"

Smitty says of this:

"It was in the frontcourt before A2 touched it. But it's still not a violation because B1 was the last to touch it in the frontcourt."

I think this is a fair expansion of his proposition:

The ball HAD FRONT COURT LOCATION before A2, WHO HAD BACKCOURT LOCATION, touched it. But it's still not a violation because, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO A2 TOUCHING THE BALL, B1 was the last PLAYER HAVING FRONT COURT LOCATION to touch it WHILE IT, THE BALL, ALSO HAD FRONTCOURT LOCATION.

I suspect the history of the rule, original intent, is in accord with Smitty's view, but 9-9 doesn't break out the elements of 'ball location' and 'player location' adequately to preclude interpretation going either way. This is not good! They ought to re-write it, in my (humble, not-so-humble, take your pick) opinion. Or Casebook it. If you can Google something, you can Casebook something, eh?

G'night, all you baskethangers.

[Lotto]

assignmentmaker has a point here. The word "cause" is used in different ways in different parts of the rulebook and it's led to common misconceptions about both. I'll quote from the NCAA rulebook:

Rule 9

Section 3. Ball Out of Bounds
Art. 1. A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds.

Section 12. Ball in Back Court
Art. 1. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court.

A player standing out of bounds who touches a ball is considered to have caused the ball to go out of bounds. A player standing in the backcourt who touches a ball with frontcourt status is not considered to have caused the ball to go into the backcourt. Maybe this is why we keep getting asked when A1, who is inbounds, throws the ball to B1, who is standing out of bounds for some reason, if B gets the ball because A1 "caused" the ball to go out of bounds. (I'm not suggesting that it does, rather, I'm suggesting that the different uses of the word "caused" is "causing" confusion.)

[Edited by Lotto on Jan 25th, 2005 at 05:46 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Lotto
]A player standing out of bounds who touches a ball is considered to have caused the ball to go out of bounds. A player standing in the backcourt who touches a ball with frontcourt status is not considered to have caused the ball to go into the backcourt. Maybe this is why we keep getting asked when A1, who is inbounds, throws the ball to B1, who is standing out of bounds for some reason, if B gets the ball because A1 "caused" the ball to go out of bounds. (I'm not suggesting that it does, rather, I'm suggesting that the different uses of the word "caused" is "causing" confusion.)

[Edited by Lotto on Jan 25th, 2005 at 05:46 AM]

I agree with Lotto. See 7-2 for the definiiotn of "cause to go OOB". 7-2-1 equally applies to the BC. 7-2-2 doesn't.

Isn't this on TH's quiz?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by TravelinMan
Juulie, or for that matter with the price of birdseed on the Canary islands,

The name "Canary Islands" has nothing to do with birds.

It has to do with the dogs that roamed the island.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Lotto
assignmentmaker has a point here. The word "cause" is used in different ways in different parts of the rulebook and it's led to common misconceptions about both. I'll quote from the NCAA rulebook:

A player standing out of bounds who touches a ball is considered to have caused the ball to go out of bounds. A player standing in the backcourt who touches a ball with frontcourt status is not considered to have caused the ball to go into the backcourt. Maybe this is why we keep getting asked when A1, who is inbounds, throws the ball to B1, who is standing out of bounds for some reason, if B gets the ball because A1 "caused" the ball to go out of bounds. (I'm not suggesting that it does, rather, I'm suggesting that the different uses of the word "caused" is "causing" confusion.)

[Edited by Lotto on Jan 25th, 2005 at 05:46 AM]

This thread would have been a lot more coherent if bobjenkins had started it.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I think it's a violation. In fact, I had that exact play last Friday night and called it a violation. So I agree with BZ with regard to the "simultaneous" touching.

I wish the Fed would issue an interp or case play on this play. I know what JR posted. Jenkins, are you around? Whatcha think?

I have to disagree with you on this one (seems like a shock to me).

There is no rule support which gives the ball simultaneous status - the ball is either in the frontcourt or it is in the backcourt.

So, in the "tipped by B, bouncing in FC, picked up by A who is standing in the BC" scenario:

4-4-1 - A ball which is in contact with a player is in the backcourt if the player is touching the backcourt.

So as soon as A1 touches the ball, it has backcourt status. If we then go through the list of requirements for a backcourt violation:

1. Team A must have control of the ball - check.
2. The ball must have frontcourt status - check.
Here, I'll skip and go to 4. - A is the first to touch the ball in the backcourt - check.
Now going back to 3. - A must be the last to touch in the frontcourt. This clearly didn't happen, regardless of whether the ball was 'over' the FC when it was touched. If A1 is in the backcourt, he could not have touched the ball in the frontcourt in that case (unless the ball is actually on the court).

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by TravelinMan
Tangential, now there's a word you can put in your Funk and Wagnell.

Wow, now that brings back the memories. Back when "Sock it to me!" had edgy overtones instead of gray hair and wrinkles.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Wow, now that brings back the memories. Back when "Sock it to me!" had edgy overtones instead of gray hair and wrinkles.

Sock it to . . . me?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

I have to disagree with you on this one (seems like a shock to me).

There is no rule support which gives the ball simultaneous status - the ball is either in the frontcourt or it is in the backcourt.

No one said the ball had simultaneous status.

The ball is in the FC. When A2 touches the ball, he is in the BC. A2 causes the ball to go from FC to BC. It
s no different than a player who is OOB, reaching in an touching a ball that is inbounds.

For me, that is a BC violation. No, it doesn't fit the four criteria that WE created right here on this forum. But neither does anything that's listed in 9-9-3.