Backcourt redux

Mark Dexter

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.

Take "caused the ball to go backcourt" out of the equation. Unlike OOB violations, it does not matter who CAUSES the ball to go BC, just who touched it last.

Adam

Originally posted by Maverick
I'll have to disagree. As I referenced in an earlier post, Rule 9-9-1 states very clearly that a player shall not

"Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt"

Very clearly, there is a difference between team control in the frontcourt and backcourt.

If you go by this simple wording, then it doesn't matter who touches it last. According to this, if B tips the ball into the backcourt and it bounces, it's still a violation on A. Are you going to call it that way?

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Maverick
I'll have to disagree. As I referenced in an earlier post, Rule 9-9-1 states very clearly that a player shall not

"Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt"

Very clearly, there is a difference between team control in the frontcourt and backcourt.

And you're still missing the key point in the rule and this discussion. A B player was the last player to touch the ball in the front court- as per rule 4-4-2 and rule 4-4-4. You conveniently left out the key part of 9-9-1, which refers to this rule only applying if A1 or a teammate was the last to touch it in the front court. They didn't - a B player did. That's all she wrote right there, folks. There is no rule in the book that I know of that now states that it's a violation of any kind if an A player is now the next player to touch the ball in the backcourt- which is where R4-4-1 and R4-4-4 say that the A player is when he touches it. If anyone can find a violation cited in the rule book, please post it.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 25th, 2005 at 04:11 PM]

mick

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Maverick
I'll have to disagree. As I referenced in an earlier post, Rule 9-9-1 states very clearly that a player shall not

"Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt"

Very clearly, there is a difference between team control in the frontcourt and backcourt.
And you're still missing the key point in the rule and this discussion. A B player was the last player to touch the ball in the front court- as per rule 4-4-2 and rule 4-4-4. That's all she wrote right there, folks. There is no rule in the book that I know of that now states that it's a violation of any kind if an A player is now the next player to touch the ball in the backcourt- which is where R4-4-1 and R4-4-4 say that the A player is when he touches it. If anyone can find a violation cited in the rule book, please post it.

The MHSAA interpreter concurs with JR.
mick

Maverick

I've tried to stop using the word "caused" in my recent posts because it isn't in the Rule Book. Just used to saying that in reference to OOB. I used the "simple wording" to illistrate the fact that frontcourt matters and I didn't think I had to quote the whole rule again as I had just done that a couple posts earlier. But, if you insist, of course it matters that B tipped the ball.

Rule 9-9-1: A player shall not...

"Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went in the backcourt."

My point is that the last phrase says "before it went in the backcourt" but in our situation the ball never obtained backcourt status until A touched it so it seems to me that our situation isn't explicitly covered by the rules.

DownTownTonyBrown

the simple wording is wrong.

The rule reads:
"A player of the team in control shall not:
ART 1. Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

You know... if you read that rule slowly, the answer appears to be pretty simple - NOT A BC VIOLATION.

My previous post was simply to show that this idea of "causing" the ball to go into the BC is spurious/wrong. It works for OOB but not for BC. And that misunderstanding is the additional information some were adding to the discussion. Being first to touch the ball in the BC does not mean that you caused the ball to enter the BC.

Maverick

Since I started my last reply before JR posted his, I'll concede the point based on the fact that Rule 9-9-1 isn't listing what a player can do, only what they cannot do. Thus, I guess I was getting a little too lost in the fact that the rule didn't describe the situation and I wasn't realizing that, since the rule didn't cover it, it would then be a legal play.

DownTownTonyBrown

The question now becomes...

Does the anonymous Assignmentmaker with his "nasty grammatical mix" agree?

assignmentmaker

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.

What does 'caused' mean? It's not part of the rules, it's part of the language the rules are written in. I would suggest it means 'propelled', 'gave impetus to'. Poor A1, s/he just happened to be part of the backcourt at the time the ball was propelled into her/him; didn't cause the ball to get to the backcourt, but, rather, merely gave it backcourt location.

The rule is badly written. Does the NFHS Rules Committee deign totake questions?

rainmaker

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

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.

What does 'caused' mean? It's not part of the rules, it's part of the language the rules are written in. I would suggest it means 'propelled', 'gave impetus to'. Poor A1, s/he just happened to be part of the backcourt at the time the ball was propelled into her/him; didn't cause the ball to get to the backcourt, but, rather, merely gave it backcourt location.

The rule is badly written. Does the NFHS Rules Committee deign totake questions?

Last summer we had a 10 page discussion about the 5-second count. I composed a 3 page letter and sent it to the rules committee. They sent back a one paragraph letter that loosely translated to, "Dont call us, we'll call you." On the other hand, BktBallRef and MTD,Sr have had some luck making a little more fruitful contact in the past. So the answer to your question is, maybe. Why not give it a try?

Back In The Saddle

Originally posted by 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.

And the Isle of Dogs isn't an island.

assignmentmaker

A Player shall not . . .
ART.1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it's been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by said ball having frontcourt status before it went to the backcourt.

If it were written this way, player A, in the backcourt in the original scenario, is more clearly the last to touch the ball having frontcourt status and the first to touch it after it has acquired backcourt status. Violation.

That's why I alluded to the 'catches the tap' issue. not because it is a perfect analogy, but because it is precedent for having, at times, to apply two rules at once.

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Maverick

Rule 9-9-1: A player shall not...

"Be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went in the backcourt."

My point is that the last phrase says "before it went in the backcourt" but in our situation the ball never obtained backcourt status until A touched it so it seems to me that our situation isn't explicitly covered by the rules.

This rule isn't now, never was and also never will be applicable to the situation that you are trying to apply it too. "He/she or a teammate" was not the last person to touch the ball in the frontcourt before the ball went in the back court. A player on the other team was the last player to touch the ball in the front court before it went into the back court.

Therefore rule 9-9-1 therefore simply DOES NOT APPLY!!!! That's why it isn't a violation! It also isn't a violation under R9-9-2. Rule 9-9-3 isn't applicable either. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule anywhere in the book that would ever make the play we're discussing a violation. If there is one somewhere, again, could someone please cite it for me?

There's no need to re-write this rule either imo. It's written simply enough now.

Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
A Player shall not . . .
ART.1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it's been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by said ball having frontcourt status before it went to the backcourt.

If it were written this way, player A, in the backcourt in the original scenario, is more clearly the last to touch the ball having frontcourt status and the first to touch it after it has acquired backcourt status. Violation.

That's why I alluded to the 'catches the tap' issue. not because it is a perfect analogy, but because it is precedent for having, at times, to apply two rules at once.

Again,Jeff, none of what you're saying is relevant at all to the play being discussed. It doesn't matter a damn really who touches it in the back court. It does matter as to who was the last to touch it in the front court. R9-9-1 ony refers to an A player or his teammate being the last to touch it in their front court. In the actual play, a B player was the last to touch the ball in the front court. That means that R9-9-1 simply is not applicable. Iow, it means that any player on the floor from either team can now legally go and get the ball in A's back court.

TravelinMan

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Originally posted by 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.

And the Isle of Dogs isn't an island.

OK, with the price of dogfood in Canaryland! Geez, officials are worse than lawyers!

BktBallRef

assignmentmaker

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
A Player shall not . . .
ART.1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it's been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by said ball having frontcourt status before it went to the backcourt.

If it were written this way, player A, in the backcourt in the original scenario, is more clearly the last to touch the ball having frontcourt status and the first to touch it after it has acquired backcourt status. Violation.

That's why I alluded to the 'catches the tap' issue. not because it is a perfect analogy, but because it is precedent for having, at times, to apply two rules at once.

Again,Jeff, none of what you're saying is relevant at all to the play being discussed. It doesn't matter a damn really who touches it in the back court. It does matter as to who was the last to touch it in the front court. R9-9-1 ony refers to an A player or his teammate being the last to touch it in their front court. In the actual play, a B player was the last to touch the ball in the front court. That means that R9-9-1 simply is not applicable. Iow, it means that any player on the floor from either team can now legally go and get the ball in A's back court.

You take 'last to touch it in their frontcourt' to mean last player with frontcourt location to touch the ball having frontcourt location'. I don't think the language means that, exclusively. But I think that's what the framers intended.

mick

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
You take 'last to touch it in their frontcourt' to mean last player with frontcourt location to touch the ball having frontcourt location'. I don't think the language means that, exclusively. But I think that's what the framers intended.

Attaboy, Jeff T.
...Spirit and Intent.
...Or was that Spirit and/or Intent? 😕

mick

Mark Dexter

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule anywhere in the book that would ever make the play we're discussing a violation. If there is one somewhere, again, could someone please cite it for me?

Nope.

rainmaker

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Chutzpah: Starting a fight, and then selling popcorn to the spectators!

« Previous Page Next Page »