Backcourt redux

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

So basically, you're disagreeing with bob jenkins, right?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by BktBallRef


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.

I see the analogy to the OOB, but that only means that the ball is in the backcourt. In NFHS rules, causation (or would it be causality? Help me out here, rainmaker. ) does not apply to the backcourt rule. An A player was NOT the last to touch the ball before it went backcourt, so no BC violation.

When (if) I (ever) start calling NCAA games - then it's a violation because the player caused the ball to go into the back court.

[Smitty]

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 argument makes the most sense to me, based on the rules that exist. I'm going with this one. Like Rainmaker, I'm not sure I could explain the reasons for calling it a violation, even though I understand why some people think it would be a violation. To me, what Lotto said makes the most sense. I have to apologize to assignmentmaker, the original poster, as I trivialized his scenario which turned out to be a very complex one.

If a case should be created in the books that covers this scenario and it calls it a violation, then I'll change my call. Until then, the only fair justification in my own mind is no violation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Smitty
I have to apologize to assignmentmaker, the original poster, as I trivialized his scenario which turned out to be a very complex one.

Wow, you mean you're taking responsibility for your own words, and thought process? Obviously, you don't belong here...

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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?

Than you are NOT agreeing with Lotto.

If you apply 7-2-1, A caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

7-2-1 says that if the ball hits A1 OOB BEFORE it strikes anything else OOB, A1 CAUSED it to be OOB.

Why wouldn't 7-2-2 apply to BC? If Al is touching the division line or behind it and they touch a ball that is in team control in the FC, you DON'T HAVE a violation?

[Smitty]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Wow, you mean you're taking responsibility for your own words, and thought process? Obviously, you don't belong here...

And to think until yesterday I thought I knew it all

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Isn't the ball in the FC when A2 touches it?

Nope. Rule 4-4-1.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

I see the analogy to the OOB, but that only means that the ball is in the backcourt. In NFHS rules, causation (or would it be causality? Help me out here, rainmaker. ) does not apply to the backcourt rule. An A player was NOT the last to touch the ball before it went backcourt, so no BC violation.

When (if) I (ever) start calling NCAA games - then it's a violation because the player caused the ball to go into the back court.

Okay, what's your call if B1 hits it TOWARD the BC and A2 touches it with their hand that is inside the division line, but has their feet in the BC? What do you call if they have one foot in the FC and one in the BC?

B did not cause the ball to go into the backcourt, because until it hits the floor, it's still in the FC.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Why wouldn't 7-2-2 apply to BC?

Because 7.2 explicitly only defines what "ball caused to go out of bounds" means.

[Jurassic Referee]

Lah me.

Rule4-4-3--"A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court".

The ball was last in contact with a B player in the front court.

Rule 4-4-4- "A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location".

The ball last touched by B in the front court is now first touched by A in the back court.

Exactly what part of R9-9-1 or 2 did a team member of A violate?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Lah me.

Rule4-4-3--"A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court".

The ball was last in contact with a B player in the front court.

Rule 4-4-4- "A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location".

The ball last touched by B in the front court is now first touched by A in the back court.

Exactly what part of R9-9-1 or 2 did a team member of A violate?

Well, by 4-4-4, if the ball had front court status and then A "caused" the ball to obtain back court status by touching it, wouldn't that be a back court violation? The only way I can see A being able to recover it is if the ball touched the floor in the back court first (again, same as going out of bounds; A can't stand out of bounds and catch the ball)

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Smitty:

I have to apologize to assignmentmaker, the original poster, as I trivialized his scenario which turned out to be a very complex one.

-------------

I appreciate your message.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick

Well, by 4-4-4, if the ball had front court status and then A "caused" the ball to obtain back court status by touching it, wouldn't that be a back court violation? The only way I can see A being able to recover it is if the ball touched the floor in the back court first (again, same as going out of bounds; A can't stand out of bounds and catch the ball)

What back court violation? That's what I'm asking you. Cite me a rule that states that an A player violated. Who was the last player to touch the ball by rule in the freaking front court? A B player, right? Now take a look at R9-9-1 or 2 and tell me what violation A could possibly make according to those rules by being the first to now touch it in the backcourt? Iow, use the rules to answer the question-not a dictionary.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 25th, 2005 at 01:36 PM]

[Maverick]

Not to be argumentative, but I believe I did use a rule (4-4-4). I don't argue that a B player was the last one to touch the ball in the front court but I don't see how it could be ruled that B caused the ball to go to the back court when the ball didn't have back court status until A touched it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
Not to be argumentative, but I believe I did use a rule (4-4-4). I don't argue that a B player was the last one to touch the ball in the front court but I don't see how it could be ruled that B caused the ball to go to the back court when the ball didn't have back court status until A touched it.

R4-4-4 says that A was the first to touch the ball in the back court. Again, what rule is he violating by doing so?