Backcourt or not?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by FrankHtown
What am I missing??

Well, Frank...

It's called "paralysis by analysis".

If you were wise, you'd leave that particular discussion completely alone. It'll only make your head hurt.

[FrankHtown]

Well, i guess I won't be working the state final this year.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Ok, I'll accept that this play doesn't make it crystal clear for the reason you give. A2's touching could have occurred AFTER the ball attains backcourt status. You are having difficulty with the situation in which A2's touching occurs at the same time as the ball gains backcourt status.

So, let's go look at the actual text of the rule.

9-9-1
"A player shall not…
ART. 1 . . . 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 to the backcourt."

"before vs. at the same time as"

In your play where does the player A1 touch the ball? A1 is standing in the backcourt, so the answer is obviously in the backcourt. While it is true that the ball in flight had frontcourt status until it was touched, there is no question that the touching by A1 occurred in the backcourt, and thus coincides with the ball gaining backcourt status.

So A1 certainly does NOT qualify as the last to touch or be touched by the ball in the frontcourt BEFORE it went to the backcourt. His touching occurred at exactly the same time as when the ball went to the backcourt.
Therefore you must ask, which player last touched the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status? B1 did. Since B1 is not A1 nor his teammate, there is no backcourt violation on this play.

The key here is that in order to be a violation A1's touching must occur prior to the ball gaining backcourt status. Even the four points system contains the word "before." No matter how you look at it, before and simultaneously are not synonyms.

Now if we change your play such that A1 jumps from the frontcourt, catches the tipped ball in the air, and then lands in the backcourt, a violation has been committed.
A1 was clearly touching the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt as that doesn't happen until he lands.

I hope that helps clarify this play for you.

"So A1 certainly does NOT qualify as the last to touch or be touched by the ball in the frontcourt BEFORE it went to the backcourt."

The language is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the ball's location or the player's location. You can rationally construe it either way.

[Nevadaref]

The use of the word "it" instead "he/she" clarifies that the reference is to THE BALL being in the frontcourt BEFORE going to the backcourt, not a particular player.

But either way you read that, it really doesn't matter.

I've already agreed with you that the ball in flight coming from the frontcourt, last touched by B1, continues to have frontcourt status until A1, who is standing in the backcourt, touches it.

Why can't you agree that A1's touching coincides with the ball attaining backcourt status?
Do you really believe that A1 is touching the ball BEFORE it attains backcourt status? If so, how is this physically possible, since by definition that ball attains backcourt status the instant that he touches it?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you.

1. The player standing in the backcourt, who catches the ball is NOT the last player to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt.

2. He is simply the first player to touch the ball IN the backcourt.

3. You need to ask who touched the ball just before that player? If your answer is an opponent, then there has been no violation. Otherwise, tweet.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The use of the word "it" instead "he/she" clarifies that the reference is to THE BALL being in the frontcourt BEFORE going to the backcourt, not a particular player.

But either way you read that, it really doesn't matter.

I've already agreed with you that the ball in flight coming from the frontcourt, last touched by B1, continues to have frontcourt status until A1, who is standing in the backcourt, touches it.

Why can't you agree that A1's touching coincides with the ball attaining backcourt status?
Do you really believe that A1 is touching the ball BEFORE it attains backcourt status? If so, how is this physically possible, since by definition that ball attains backcourt status the instant that he touches it?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you.

1. The player standing in the backcourt, who catches the ball is NOT the last player to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt.

2. He is simply the first player to touch the ball IN the backcourt.

3. You need to ask who touched the ball just before that player? If your answer is an opponent, then there has been no violation. Otherwise, tweet.

Sure, on the he/she thing. Sorry.

I call this the same way you do.

Nontheless, the rule itself is unambiguously ambigous, because of the way it's drafted.

"Do you really believe that A1 is touching the ball BEFORE it attains backcourt status?"

I believe that, as happens often in the rules and is sometimes clarified by making an exception or with an 'interpretation', two rules overlap - and there is no guidance (as in the matter of the jump ball) as to how to resolve it.

Do you really believe the player who has caught the jump ball doesn't have control of it??????

How about this rule: if Team A is in control of the ball in the frontcourt, it shall be a violation if a member of Team A having frontcourt location is the last player to touch the ball before a member of Team A having backcourt location touches the ball.

A little verbose, perhaps, but unambigous. I think.

"I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you."

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
How about this rule: if Team A is in control of the ball in the frontcourt, it shall be a violation if a member of Team A having frontcourt location is the last player to touch the ball before a member of Team A having backcourt location touches the ball.

Under teh current rule, Team A doesn't need to touch the ball in the FC for there to be a violation. Your wording would require that to be true.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Under teh current rule, Team A doesn't need to touch the ball in the FC for there to be a violation. Your wording would require that to be true.

I agree. Thanks! I failed to include the matter of the ball by itself acquiring from court location, as when it bounces off an official in the frontcourt, or, fantastically but possibly, is put into the front court with backspin and comes back to a Team A player in the backcourt.

How about this:

(Proposed 9-1 & 9-2) If Team A is in control of a ball having frontcourt location, it shall be a violation for a member of Team A in the backcourt to touch the ball unless an opponent's touch immediately precedes A's touch.

I think this covers:

1) the generic backcourt: A player on Team A has the ball in the frontcourt - passes, bobbles, whatever - the ball goes directly into the backcourt and a member of Team A immediately picks it up.

2) the generic non-backcourt: B1 knocks it away from A1 who is holding the ball in the frontcourt. It goes directly into the backcourt and A1 immediately picks it up.

3) the special case where A1, in the backcourt, bounces the ball off an official standing in the frontcourt, whereupon the ball returns to backcourt location and a member of Team a immediately touches it.

3) the special case I'm making such a big deal about, where where B1 in the front court taps a pass between two members of Team A who are in the frontcourt and the ball is caught in the air by a member of Team A who is in the backcourt.

But, maybe not . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

I agree. Thanks! I failed to include the matter of the ball by itself acquiring from court location, as when it bounces off an official in the frontcourt, or, fantastically but possibly, is put into the front court with backspin and comes back to a Team A player in the backcourt.

How about this:

(Proposed 9-1 & 9-2) If Team A is in control of a ball having frontcourt location, it shall be a violation for a member of Team A in the backcourt to touch the ball unless an opponent's touch immediately precedes A's touch.

I think this covers:

1) the generic backcourt: A player on Team A has the ball in the frontcourt - passes, bobbles, whatever - the ball goes directly into the backcourt and a member of Team A immediately picks it up.

2) the generic non-backcourt: B1 knocks it away from A1 who is holding the ball in the frontcourt. It goes directly into the backcourt and A1 immediately picks it up.

3) the special case where A1, in the backcourt, bounces the ball off an official standing in the frontcourt, whereupon the ball returns to backcourt location and a member of Team a immediately touches it.

3) the special case I'm making such a big deal about, where where B1 in the front court taps a pass between two members of Team A who are in the frontcourt and the ball is caught in the air by a member of Team A who is in the backcourt.

But, maybe not . . .

Still no good. It matter not where any player is when they touch the ball. The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status.

#3 is not a violation.

A violation. A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it...Violation.

You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

#3 is not a violation.

The first #3 is a violation, but the second #3 is not.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Still no good. It matter not where any player is when they touch the ball. The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status.

#3 is not a violation.

A violation. A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it...Violation.

You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done.

First of all, obviously #4 should have been labelled #4.

Second, "The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status." You're just standing there saying this is true because you say it is. I agree with the call. It's not clear in the language.

Third. If by #3 you mean the FIRST #3, huh? How is that not 9.9.1 Situation C?

"You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done." You know this, or you just feel it?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Lotto

The first #3 is a violation, but the second #3 is not.

In accordance with the laws of good sense, attention to detail, and disentropy, the second #3 is now officially #4 . . .

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Still no good. It matter not where any player is when they touch the ball. The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status.

#3 is not a violation.

A violation. A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it...Violation.

You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done.

"A violation. A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it...Violation." Nice . . .

(Proposed 9-1 & 9-2) If Team A is in control of a ball having frontcourt location, it shall be a violation for a member of Team A to touch the ball again after it has attained backcourt location unless an opponent's touch intervenes.

Brevity is the soul of wit. 86 words in 9-1 & 9-2. 38 in 'Proposed 9-1 & 9-2'.

Now covers:

1) the generic backcourt: A player on Team A has the ball in the frontcourt - passes, bobbles, whatever - the ball goes directly into the backcourt and a member of Team A immediately picks it up.

2) the generic non-backcourt: B1 knocks it away from A1 who is holding the ball in the frontcourt. It goes directly into the backcourt and A1 immediately picks it up.

3) the special case where A1, in the backcourt, bounces the ball off an official standing in the frontcourt, whereupon the ball returns to backcourt location and a member of Team a immediately touches it.

4) the special case I'm making such a big deal about, where where B1 in the front court taps a pass between two members of Team A who are in the frontcourt and the ball is caught in the air by a member of Team A who is in the backcourt.

5) the Rustian case: A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it.

Or does it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

"A violation. A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it...Violation." Nice . . .

(Proposed 9-1 & 9-2) If Team A is in control of a ball having frontcourt location, it shall be a violation for a member of Team A to touch the ball again after it has attained backcourt location unless an opponent's touch intervenes.

Brevity is the soul of wit. 86 words in 9-1 & 9-2. 38 in 'Proposed 9-1 & 9-2'.

Now covers:

1) the generic backcourt: A player on Team A has the ball in the frontcourt - passes, bobbles, whatever - the ball goes directly into the backcourt and a member of Team A immediately picks it up.

2) the generic non-backcourt: B1 knocks it away from A1 who is holding the ball in the frontcourt. It goes directly into the backcourt and A1 immediately picks it up.

3) the special case where A1, in the backcourt, bounces the ball off an official standing in the frontcourt, whereupon the ball returns to backcourt location and a member of Team a immediately touches it.

4) the special case I'm making such a big deal about, where where B1 in the front court taps a pass between two members of Team A who are in the frontcourt and the ball is caught in the air by a member of Team A who is in the backcourt.

5) the Rustian case: A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it.

Or does it?

Given infinite time, ten thousand monkies with ten thousand typewriters could theoretically write the whole NFHS rule book.

Or to match what you've done so far........three monkies, 10 minutes.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

First of all, obviously #4 should have been labelled #4.

Second, "The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status." You're just standing there saying this is true because you say it is. I agree with the call. It's not clear in the language.

Third. If by #3 you mean the FIRST #3, huh? How is that not 9.9.1 Situation C?

"You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done." You know this, or you just feel it?

Yes, I was referring to the 2nd #3 (aka #4).

The language quite clearly talks about first to touch after the ball has BC status and last to touch before teh ball has BC status. How is that difficult?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I was referring to the 2nd #3 (aka #4).

The language quite clearly talks about first to touch after the ball has BC status and last to touch before teh ball has BC status. How is that difficult?

The language of 9-1 is poor, even unto ambiguous. It says " . . . if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went into the backcourt."

Does 'he/she or a teammate last touched . . . the ball in the frontcourt' mean that the toucher has frontcourt location or that the ball has frontcourt location? It could go either way.

A ref who asked for my view on this said: "Causing the ball to be in the backcourt (see Rule 7, Sec 1, Art. 1) happens when the player on Team A secures the ball that, until this moment, was OVER the Team A backcourt but still untouched and subsequently, in the frontcourt." He is combining player location and ball location to get his result. I intuit, and agree with you, that that result isn't what the rules committee wants . . . but they have not provided a rule drafted well enough to insure that result.

The above notwithstanding, does: "(Proposed 9-1 & 9-2) If Team A is in control of a ball having frontcourt location, it shall be a violation for a member of Team A to touch the ball again after it has attained backcourt location unless an opponent's touch intervenes" cover:

1) the generic backcourt: A player on Team A has the ball in the frontcourt - passes, bobbles, whatever - the ball goes directly into the backcourt and a member of Team A immediately picks it up.

2) the generic non-backcourt: B1 knocks it away from A1 who is holding the ball in the frontcourt. It goes directly into the backcourt and A1 immediately picks it up.

3) the special case where A1, in the backcourt, bounces the ball off an official standing in the frontcourt, whereupon the ball returns to backcourt location and a member of Team a immediately touches it.

4) the special case where where B1 in the front court taps a pass between two members of Team A who are in the frontcourt and the ball is caught in the air by a member of Team A who is in the backcourt.

5) the Rustian case: A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it.