The following protocol appears to work just fine for BktBallRef's Backcourt Quiz:

1- Team A must have team control.
2- The ball must have attained frontcourt status.
3- A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it
enters the backcourt.
4- A player from team A must be the first player to touch the ball after it
enters the backcourt.

but how might it be apply in the following situation?

The ball is being passed among teammates on Team A in their front court. B1 tips a pass such that the ball flies up and over the backcourt. A1 steps into the backcourt and catches the ball before it hits the floor. Backcourt or not, and why?

Team B was the last to touch the ball in front court status and causes it to go back court whereas Team A can now touch the ball in back court. If Team A touches the ball after the deflection by Team B prior to it going in the back court, we now have a violation.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) NO (B was last to touch)
4) Yes

No BC violation.

Sometimes people get confused thinking that this play is the same as "A1 catches the ball while standing outr of bounds." That's a violation on A1 because of a specific statement in 7-2-2. No similar statement exists for the BC rule.

We could use a little 7-2-2.
 

#3 in your answer is indeed worthy of capital letters. This is another case, in my view, where several rules are brought into play by one physical act, and there is no generalization to guide their application.

Until recently, when a jumper caught a jump ball, the opponents (call them Team B) got the arrow and ball, on the theory that, first, the jumper had controlled the ball (arrow to Team B), then the jumper violated by virtue of having the ball (ball to Team B).

For whatever reason, perhaps becuase the penalty seemed unduly onerous, the theory was changed: a jumper who catches the jump ball now violates the terms of the jump ball by virtue of catching it (and the hell with control) - ball to Team B, arrow to Team A.

In the 'backcourt' situation under consideration here, with respect to:

"A player from team A must be the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt"

the ball has frontcourt location until A1 (who happens to have backcourt location) touches it: the ball does not 'enter the backcourt' until it touches A1. A case can be made that A1 is both the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt and then the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt. I mean, where was it when A1 first touched it?

The backcourt violation rule language doesn't make clear that it's the player's location, and not the ball's, that is the dominating criterion.

That being said, I would call this the way you would. It 'looks' reasonable.

This was 10 pager the last time you posted it.

Both sides have merit, and nothing has changed, so why was it necessary to ask it again?

For the same reason BktBallRef posts his - to educate
 

For the same reason BktBallRef posts his - to educate.

Re: For the same reason BktBallRef posts his - to educate
 

There's a big difference between repeat postings of quizzes that deal with situations that have concrete yes or no answers and having a cause against the vagueness of certain areas of the rule book.;)

Re: Re: For the same reason BktBallRef posts his - to educate
 

This play is not far-fetched. I think it's useful for officials to be prepared - to have encountered in advance - plays that may come up. Know what you're going to call and call it - then get the ball back in play as fast as possible.

Do I have a "cause against the vagueness of certain areas of the rule book"? Sure. I think it hurts the game that the rules are not better drawn. I'm not unaware of, or unsympathetic about, how difficult the task of rationalizing, recodifying, etc. would be. but it can be done, and I think they ought to do it.

Jeff,
Remember you are not basing your argument on the specific language in the Rules Book, but rather on some 4 point system that has been devised to help officials determine backcourt violations. Don't get caught up in language that is NOT in the book.

Your play is not a backcourt violation because Casebook play 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) says that it is legal.

I appreciate the the 4-point system is not
 

I appreciate that the 4-point system is not presented in the rules book as such. But it is widely used, and useful.

In my view, 9.9.1 Situation C part (b) does not address the play I describe. It says "B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt". That doesn't make clear whether or not the ball attains backcourt location before "A2 recovers in the backcourt".

re BktBallRef's quiz
 

As I mentioned in my last post, the 4-point protocol for analyzing whether a play is or is not backcourt is widely used and useful. Many people have applied it to the questions in BktBallRef's quiz. In that quiz I think there may be at least one undecidable proposition, from a strict rules perspective, #6:

"Play #6 - 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, drops the ball which lands in the FC, then begins to dribble the ball while still straddling the division line. Is this a BC violation? Why or why not?"

Unless I am wrong, and of course I might be, the 4-point protocol adjudicates this play as backcourt, on the basis that A1 is the last player to touch the ball before it
enters the backcourt and the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt.

True enough, Team A has team control. And indisputably the ball attains frontcourt status when it's dropped in the frontcourt. But the touch which makes A1 the last player to touch the ball before it enters the backcourt and the first player to touch the ball after it enters the backcourt is also the start of a whole new 'state', the dribble.

Does touch always dominate, like paper covers rock? I don't know. I know that catching a live ball in bounds does not constitute control in the case of a jump ball.

It would be a great (great as in making life easier, great as in fouls are taken in the order in which they occur) simplification if it were true that, in all cases, a simpler, elemental act like touching always set the precedence with which higher level rules should be applied. Catching is touching without end. Dribbling is touching plus . . .

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.

Re: re BktBallRef's quiz
 

Does it? This is the key to understanding this entire play.


Well, I'd say you are on the right track with the dribble issue and you also seem to have the timing of this act correct.
When A1 was holding the ball after catching it and before dropping it, he was the last to touch the ball prior to it hitting the floor in the frontcourt. During this time A1 and the ball were considered to be in the backcourt. He then dropped the ball, it hit the floor in the frontcourt, then A1 started a dribble by touching the ball again. That is what the play says, right?


Ok, now that I've told you that, I'll also state I disagree with the answer Tony has provided to this question in the past. However, I won't post what his answer is or why I disagree with it until after he has provided it in the quiz thread. I do not wish to spoil his fun over there or take away from any new official who is learning something by taking the quiz and thinking about the questions for himself.

What am I missing?? The simple act of B1 touching the ball does not remove team control. So we have a ball still with in team control, with front court status. When does the ball obtain back court status? When it touches the floor or a player in the backcourt. If A lets the ball bounce in the back court, then picks it up, sounds like a legal play to me,..B1 was the last to touch before the ball gained backcourt status. But in the described situation, the ball never acheived back court status, until A, in the back court, touches the ball. Now the ball has backcourt status, and A caused it to become backcourt. I'd call a violation.

And you'd be incorrect. It is NOT a violation to cause the ball to attain backcourt status. It is only a violation to be the first to touch the ball if you or a teammate of yours was the last to touch it BEFORE it gained backcourt status. B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status in this play. A1 touched the ball WHEN it gained backcourt status, not before.
See the difference?

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. :D

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

Not exactly
 

"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.

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.

I am being too casual
 

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."

Re: I am being too casual
 

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.

Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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 . . . :(

Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

"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?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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. :D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am being too casual
 

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?

At least we agree about the call!
 

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.

What if A1 jumps from the front court after B1 tips it, catches the ball in the air, then lands in the backcourt. When A1 catches the ball it still has FC status, since it hasn't hit the ground yet and A1 hasn't stepped into the backcourt yet. Violation?

Yes.

Hmmmm.... Where have we see this before? ....
Oh, yeah, way back on the first page of this thread:

Sorry, Nevadaref. The first part of your post was addressing a different aspect of the play so I missed this explanation. Thanks for pointing it out.

Just having some fun with you. :)

It happens all the time in long threads. People read part of it and then skip around. This leads to asking a question or making a point about something that was already made earlier.

We all do it. No worries.

ball location & player location
 

A1 is clearly the last player HAVING FRONT COURT LOCATION to touch the ball, and then the first player HAVING BACKCOURT LOCATION to touch it. Backcourt. Q.E.D., ex post facto . . .

Ball location isn't an issue in the case you describe, and, because the matters of 'location' are handled inconsistenly, there is at least one undecidable proposition out there . . .

Re: ball location & player location
 

Ball location is the only location that matters. Where the player touches dosn't matter.

In this case, A1 was the last to have touched the ball before it went to the backcourt and A1 was the first to touch the ball after the ball went into the backcourt. THe ball, for both parts of the situation, went into the backcourt the moment that A1 landed in the backcourt.

The fact that A1 had frontcout location only confuses the rule.

Just a note....this is my first post--A GREEN HORN--I just wanted to thank Nevadaref for giving the best explanations of that whole thread.....A1 touched the ball WHEN it went backcourt...not BEFORE. A very good job, and IMHO, the definitive word on that subject...the middle of that thread got way too deep for me to follow...sorry....Skarecrow

You mean it he touched it when it went into
 

You mean it he touched it when it went into the backcourt after he touched it while it was in the front court?

But this is all solipsism. Study logic.