et encore:

The ball, in Team A's control in the frontcourt, is whacked to the floor in the frontcourt by B1 and bounces in the air over the backcourt, where A3, baskethanging fool, catches it. Backcourt or no?

NFHS Rule 9-9 joins the concepts of ball location and player location in a nasty grammatical mix, producing a situation similar to the matter of 'catching the tap', where two elements of the rules, control and violation, come into play simultaneously, instantaneously. The Casebook has adjudicated this, saying, "Bok, bok, the chicken came first, the chicken came first" : if A catches it, B gets the ball and A gets the arrow.

Consider the last phrase of 9-9: ". . . if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

A3, indeed, touches a ball which has frontcourt location. The ball is where it was. The ball is, effectively, in the front court.

Thus A3 simultaneously 'causes it to go into the backcourt' and is 'first to touch it in the backcourt', the double whammy. If A3 had let the ball bounce in the backcourt, no problem . . . but he didn't . . .

Huh?

If B1 last touched it in the front court, it doesn't matter whether "A3 simultaneously 'causes it to go into the backcourt' and is 'first to touch it in the backcourt', the double whammy". I don't get what you're saying here.

Oh, wait, I get it. No, A3 doesn't cause it to go into the backcourt. When he first touches it, if his feet were last in the backcourt, then he doesn't cause it. The last player to touch in the front court is the one who "causes it to go into the back court."

That much I get. What does the "catching the tip" part have to do with anything? I don't have my books with me so I can't read 9-9. What a confusing post.

I think it's tangential. He started comparing his scenario to a jumper at the beginning of the game catching the tip-off. But it's not a good comparison because B1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt, not A3. The part I don't get is why A3 is a baskethanging fool and what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

Maybe he just didn't like the fact that when he first posted this question, many of us said it was a no-brainer. So now he needed to throw some voo-doo in there to make us lose track. Good thing I had lots of caffeine today. :)

[Edited by Smitty on Jan 24th, 2005 at 06:57 PM]

When did he post it previously? I don't remember seeing it.

You're right, it's exactly the same. I also like the little editorial remark -- "You all are a little snotty." So maybe he thinks a week later, we'll be less so?!? He obviously hasn't been lurking long!

What is analogous is . . .
 

the notion that two rules may apply simultaneously. In any logical system, snotty or not, there will be meta-rules.

"Oh, wait, I get it. No, A3 doesn't cause it to go into the backcourt. When he first touches it, if his feet were last in the backcourt, then he doesn't cause it. The last player to touch in the front court is the one who "causes it to go into the back court."

I like this. I tend to agree with it. If you take 'causes' to mean 'propels'. But this is a little unusual. Usually one causes the ball to be somewhere by virtue of touching it.

This is basketball, not a science class about chickens. The situation you cited is not a violation.

Z

Huh?

Z - LMAO. You should try standup. And yes I agree with you - on all your points.

Juulie, or for that matter with the price of birdseed on the Canary islands, as a good friend of mine once said......Tangential, now there's a word you can put in your Funk and Wagnell. :)

Don't be snotty.

Now it's my turn to wipe off my screen.

BTW, Syracuse just barely got by Rutgers. See the game?

et encore:

Same answer as last week, mainly because the case book hasn't changed since then.

No violation. Case book play 9.9.1SitC(b).

Yup. Damn, I was hoping that Rutgers woulda nailed 'em too. Love to see Willie the Whiner lose.

Me too, they were up big first half, SU came out strong second half. RU had their chances in the last minute, lots of offensive reounds.

You getting OK state at OU? 19-2, at the 12:40 mark

Thanks. I agree.
 

"No violation. Case book play 9.9.1SitC(b)."

I think the rule is written badly and/or the situation is rather singular, using the issue of player location independently of ball location, which is not the case in other, allied rules.

Me too, they were up big first half, SU came out strong second half. RU had their chances in the last minute, lots of offensive reounds.

You getting OK state at OU? 19-2, at the 12:40 mark [/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, blew an 18 point half-time lead. Lah me. Gonna head down in a minute or so to do some surfing, including OK/OU. I get the NCAA pass as well as getting all the Fox regionals on the dish too. Decisions...decisions :D

Yeah, blew an 18 point half-time lead. Lah me. Gonna head down in a minute or so to do some surfing, including OK/OU. I get the NCAA pass as well as getting all the Fox regionals on the dish too. Decisions...decisions :D [/B][/QUOTE]

If you can get CCSU at Monmouth (NEC) check it out, Jackie Loube (IAABO head honcho) is working that game.

Are you sure? How about this play?

A1 is trapped on the sideline, in the FC. She leaps and attempts to throw the ball off B1. The ball goes off B1 but doesn't go OOB. Instead, it bounces toward the BC. A2 chases the ball, steps into the BC and grabs the ball while it was still in the FC. The ball was never in the BC, until A2 touches it? Violation?

Big East - toughest conference in the country to win a game. I've been crying in my beer oover the fortunes of my PC friars. Lost to Villanova in OT without starting PG due to flu, drops a 4 point game to Cuse then has to play Rutgers at their place and loses from foul line (23 points vs 7 points). BC this Wed. It doesn't get any easier.

Yes, no loss of team control, so it is the same thing as A2 holding the ball and stepping into the backcourt.

Okay.

So how is this different than the original play?

It's no different at all. B was the last player to touch the ball while it was in the frontcourt.

I know I'm going to be sorry I posted this, I'm always wrong when I think too much.

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

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.

That case play has the ball in team A's control going FROM the back court to the FC, touched by B, back to the back court.

This play has the ball in team A's control IN the FC, touched by B, but the ball still has FC status until it touches A2 in the BC, VERY different than the case play.

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?

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?

Interesting to think about
 

My .02 is ...No violation.

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.

Apples and oranges
 

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.

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]

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?

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

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

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

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).

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?

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?

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. :p) 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.

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.

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

Than you are NOT agreeing with Lotto.:D

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?

And to think until yesterday I thought I knew it all :)

Nope. Rule 4-4-1.

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.

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

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)

Smitty
 

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.

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]

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?

Not back court
 

This is not the same as Out Of Bounds.

A1, trapped by B2 & B3 in BC with ball just shy of division line. B2 & B3 are in the FC. A1 attempts pass. B3 jumps (from FC) and blocks pass back into A1's hands.

This is not a BC violation. Trying to pull some similarities to the OOB situation, some of you are basically arguing that it would be a BC violation because the ball achieved FC status when B3 blocked the pass and that A1 'caused' the ball to regain BC status because he is standing in the BC. Not true - read Rule 9-12-2.

This is obviously not a BC violation because Team A never had FC control. It doesn't meet the requirements of Article 2 because B3 touched the ball. So it is not the same as the blocked OOB play where the thrower "causes" the ball to go OOB by catching it while OOB.

The rules do not say anything about the ball must have BC status before Team A may touch it after Team B was last to touch in FC.

I think some of you are adding more than what the rule says.

Re: Not back court
 

True, but in this play A HAD the ball in the FC.

The rules say deflects it back to the back court, 9.9.1.C, the ball is in the FC until it contacts the floor, a player, or an official in the back court 4-4-3 and 4-4-4.

What the rules don't say is does A2's touching a ball that still has FC status meet the last to touch a ball in the FC aspect of the BC violation?

Re: Not back court
 

Your first situation (A1 trapped by B3 and B2) doesn't apply in this case because A never had possesion in the frontcourt. That definitely wouldn't be a backcourt violation. In the situation described, A had the ball in frontcourt and it was deflected towards the backcourt by B. Also, are you sure on Rule 9-12-2? In the Rule Book I'm looking at, Rule 9 (Violations and Penalties) Section 12 is Goaltending, or am I not looking in the right spot? Rule 9-9-1 states that 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."

However, I'm not sure that exactly applies becuse the ball never got to the backcourt until A touched it again.

I'll admit that I'm not as sure about my backcourt violation ruling as I was at first because it appears to me that the Rule Book is ambiguous about this situation; it describes how to rule if a player caused the ball to go out of bounds but not how to rule on who caused it to go to the backcourt (this can be assumed but isn't explicitly stated as far as I can tell) and it doesn't rule on this case where the a player in the backcourt touches a ball that still has frontcourt status but was last touched by the team not in control. I think the "safe" call (the one that wouldn't make either team's coach/fans blow a gasket) would be to let play continue. However, it doesn't appear to me that the Rule Book states explicitly either way.

The two situations may look different, but they are the same as far as the rules go. In both cases, team control is continued by A and FC is established (or continued) by the location of the last player to touch the ball. The rules do not differentiate whether player control was established in the FC, only team control. IOW, by rule, if one is not a BC violation (and the case book play says it's not), then the other cannot be; barring a case-book play saying differently.
If memory serves, the BC rule says nothing about "causing" the ball to go into the backcourt; but only about being the last to touch it in the FC after team control has been established.

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.

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.

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?

And you're still missing the key point in the rule and this discussion. A B player was the <b>last</b> 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]

The MHSAA interpreter concurs with JR.
mick

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.

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.

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.

The question now becomes...

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

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?

And the Isle of Dogs isn't an island.

9.9.1 Clear as mud or just playing beyond its ability?
 

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.

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 <b>not</b> 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 <b>isn't</b> 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 <b>no</b> 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.

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.

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

<img src=http://www.harrythecat.com/graphics/A/popcorn3.gif>

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? http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/conf44.gif

mick

Nope.

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

:)