Backcourt Violation? - Page 3

Camron Rust · #31 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 02:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it.

I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.

Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.

Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.

The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.

In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.

The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).

The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.

Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.

DownTownTonyBrown · #32 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 04:08pm

Not wanting to add more scenarios but perhaps these will clarify our thoughts.

Player A1 standing in BC leans forward with ball and touches it to the floor in the FC then stands up. Violation?

This time Player A1 standing in BC leans forward and places the ball on the FC floor. Removes his hands and stands up. Now he leans over and picks it up. Violation?

Do the answers to these two questions help clarify the answer for the original play with ball in FC off of Team B and Team A standing in BC retreives?

DownTownTonyBrown · #33 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 04:20pm

I would say the answer to the first is no violation.

The answer to the second looks like it should be a violation.

Here is the answer to the first question in Tony's (read as Guru's) Backcourt Quiz:

Play #1 - A1 is straddling the division line, with his right foot in the FC and his left foot in the BC. He receives a pass from A2 who is still in the BC. A1 catches the pass but them fumbles it to the floor in the FC. He bends over and picks the ball up while still straddling the division line. Is this a BC violation? Why or why not?

Answer: Yes, this is a backcourt violation. To determine if this is a backcourt violation, we must determine if all four criteria have been met.
1- Team A must have team control. Yes, Team A is in control. Although there is no player control during a fumble, team control exists until the ball becomes dead or B possesses it.
2- The ball must have attained front court status. Yes, when the ball hit the floor in the FC, FC status was attained. Remember that a fumble is not a dribble, so the "three points" rule does not apply.
3- A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt. Yes, A1 touched the ball last before it went into the BC.
4- A player from team A must be the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt. Yes, A1 touched the ball while standing in the BC

I'm now thinking the original play was a BC violation?

blindzebra · #34 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 04:44pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it.

I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.

Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.

Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.

The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.

In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.

The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).

The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.

Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.

A1 WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH IT IN THE FC BEFORE IT WENT IN THE BACK COURT IN THIS STUPID PLAY.

Camron Rust · #35 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 05:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it.

I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.

Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.

Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.

The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.

In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.

The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).

The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.

Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.

A1 WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH IT IN THE FC BEFORE IT WENT IN THE BACK COURT IN THIS STUPID PLAY.

No. B1 was. From the original play "A1 throws the ball off of B1" then it went into the backcourt when A1, from the backcourt, picked it up. That last contact before A1 picked it up was with B1. A1 touched it at the same time as it gained backcourt status...not before.

blindzebra · #36 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 05:07pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it.

I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.

Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.

Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.

The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.

In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.

The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).

The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.

Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.

A1 WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH IT IN THE FC BEFORE IT WENT IN THE BACK COURT IN THIS STUPID PLAY.

No. B1 was. From the original play "A1 throws the ball off of B1" then it went into the backcourt when A1, from the backcourt, picked it up. That last contact before A1 picked it up was with B1. A1 touched it at the same time as it gained backcourt status...not before.

No, the origional play is:

A1 is trapped in the corner in the FC, they bounce the ball off of B1 and it rolls parallel to the division line and STAYS IN THE FC, A1 runs around the trap enters the BC and with both feet IN THE BC picks up the ball.

Perhaps you should know the play before you argue.

Camron Rust · #37 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 05:08pm

Another approach to this just came to my mind...

When team A has team control...

When a player form team B touches the ball, the backcourt opens as fair territory for all to play in.

When a player from team A touches the ball in a way that it gains/has frontcourt status, the backcourt closes to team A.

Camron Rust · #38 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 05:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
No, we're arguing wih the wording of the rule. Without the federalist papers here, we don't know what "the intent" is. Without that, we have to go with how the rule is worded. Cameron is right, it's worded by chronology; not cause and effect.
I'd have no problem explaining my call to my assignor (or a coach for that matter) or even the state director of officials. My guess is that on this play, they'd consider it a judgment call and would be more concerned that I actually saw it and knew why I didn't call it than upset that I didn't call it.

I went back to fix a typo and my post got deleted, somehow.

Anyway, there are MANY areas of the rules that require us to interpret INTENT to judge the play correctly.

Parts are poorly written, somethings don't have case plays that REALLY need them.

The rule and the case play speaks of team A RETRIEVING a ball from the backcourt. I read that as getting a ball WITH BC status, which is the INTENT of the rule.

In this play A1 retrieves a ball with FC status with their feet in the back court, so once again B1 WAS NOT the last to touch the ball in the FC, A1 was and they did it with their feet in the back court, which is a violation.

The rule is not last to touch in the FC, it's last to touch before it goes into the backcourt (these are not the same).

The very instant A1 touched it, it was in the BC. For it to be a violatoin, A1 would have to be the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt (that was B1)...not simultaneous with it going backcourt.

Also, the intent is to allow A to play the ball if B has been involved in specified ways.

A1 WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH IT IN THE FC BEFORE IT WENT IN THE BACK COURT IN THIS STUPID PLAY.

No. B1 was. From the original play "A1 throws the ball off of B1" then it went into the backcourt when A1, from the backcourt, picked it up. That last contact before A1 picked it up was with B1. A1 touched it at the same time as it gained backcourt status...not before.

No, the origional play is:

A1 is trapped in the corner in the FC, they bounce the ball off of B1 and it rolls parallel to the division line and STAYS IN THE FC, A1 runs around the trap enters the BC and with both feet IN THE BC picks up the ball.

Perhaps you should know the play before you argue.

I know the play...the location of the ball is irrelevant. It's a red herring. The ball ALWAYS STAYS IN THE FC until something causes it to go into the BC.

At the time the ball gained BC status, who was the last one to have touched it BEFORE that point in time? B1. That is all that matters.

A different play to demonstrate. B1 guarding A1 swats the ball into the air and away from A1 such that it, having not touched the floor, hits A2 who is standing at the backcourt FT line. The ball never had BC status before A2 hits it.

Another...B2 swats the ball into the air towards the backcourt where A1 and B1 both go for the ball. By your ruling, A1 can not play the ball until it hits the floor or B1 while B1 has free access to go for the ball. Makes no sense.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Feb 10th, 2005 at 05:18 PM]

blindzebra · #39 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 05:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Another approach to this just came to my mind...

When team A has team control...

When a player form team B touches the ball, the backcourt opens as fair territory for all to play in.

When a player from team A touches the ball in a way that it gains/has frontcourt status, the backcourt closes to team A.

Fine and dandy, but is the ORIGIONAL play a violation?

Camron Rust · #40 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 10, 2005, 05:21pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Another approach to this just came to my mind...

When team A has team control...

When a player form team B touches the ball, the backcourt opens as fair territory for all to play in.

When a player from team A touches the ball in a way that it gains/has frontcourt status, the backcourt closes to team A.

Fine and dandy, but is the ORIGIONAL play a violation?

Of course not...by either my new approch or the written rule.