backcourt

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
I know I disagreed with all of you about this play so I said that maybe I was wrong but I wanted clarification from the rules committee at NFHS. I contacted the NFHS and they said all rule questions and interpretaions had to be resolved by your state rules authority. This is the person chosen by the NHFS to teach and interpret rules for our intire state. So I sent this backcourt question to my state rules authority for an interpretaion and explaination on exactly why would this be a backcourt violation (since many of you thought I was stupid for thinking that this could possibly NOT be a backcourt violation!).
Here is his answer copied from my e-mail : This would not be a backcourt violation.

If you have any further questions, please give me a call.

He is traveling the state this week conducting the annual state new basketball rules meeting for refs and coaches. I will see him on Wednesday and I will verify in person with him that he still thinks it is not a violation and let you all know why or why not!

Why? Why would we be interested in his opinion when we know he is wrong?

Just because he's a state interpreter doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I've heard some state interpreters stand before a state rules clinic gathering and say some completely wrong things.

You're guy is wrong. He's as wrong as the day is long, just as you are. No amount of questioning him will change that.

[David B]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why? Why would we be interested in his opinion when we know he is wrong?

Just because he's a state interpreter doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I've heard some state interpreters stand before a state rules clinic gathering and say some completely wrong things.

You're guy is wrong. He's as wrong as the day is long, just as you are. No amount of questioning him will change that.

This is another example of one thing "wrong" with the NFHS. Instead of simply giving an answer by rule they simply try and defer to the state.

As obvious by this state interpretation, the state guys sometimes don't know the rules.

In basketball and baseball (the two sports that I officiate) every year I get intrerpretations from the state that simply do NOT follow the rules.

I know in our state basketball meeting last night there were several things said that had me shaking my head in disbelief.

He said several things that simply are "not" in the rules; however, its a moot point to argue because they always think they are right.

I'm going to email him today just to satisfy my curiosity.

NFHS wants everyone on the same page, but they don't want to take the extra steps necessary to achieve their goal IMO.

Thanks
David

[BktBallRef]

Good points, David.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by David B

NFHS wants everyone on the same page, but they don't want to take the extra steps necessary to achieve their goal IMO.

Maybe the NFHS rulesmakers were just taking it for granted that their state interpreters knew how to read.

Silly NFHS rulesmakers.....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jallen

you do say the ball has front court status, which means it is no longer in the back court. no violation as described. if the back spin caused it to roll on the court back into the front court, once it is in the FC, no violation. However what is interesting is if the back spin caused it to bounce. It hits the back court, bounces and due to back spin begins it's return to the front court. However, while still in the air but before it touches the front court, the offensive team touches the ball. Back over, even if the ball has crossed the center court division line in the air but not touched the front court yet, violation. I have never seen this happen.

One way that I've always liked to view the backcourt rule is to make it similar to the OOB rule and FT violations...

View it like a delayed violation for going frontcourt to backcourt if the team in control (A) caused (in the OOB rule sense) it to be in the backcourt. If the next team (B) to touch it is the other team, the violation is ignored. If the next team to touch it is the team that has team control (A), violation.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

KY, this is from the 2006-07 NCAA Rulebook, take it for what it is worth. I already admitted I was wrong and needed to read, maybe you should do the same.

Rule 9.12-1
A.R. 190. A1 is in possession of the ball in the front court and throws a pass to A2 , who is located near the division line. A1’s pass is errant. A2 leaves the playing court with both feet in an attempt to prevent the ball from going into the back court. While in the air, A2 gains possession of the ball and throws it into the playing court, where it strikes the division line. The ball returns to the front court, where A3 recovers the ball before it is touched by an opponent. RULING: Team A has committed a back-court violation. The official shall blow the whistle for the back-court violation when the ball is touched by A3 in the front court after it touched the division line. Team A had control of the ball in its front court and the ball was last touched by Team A before going into the back court. Rule 9-12 says nothing about where the ball goes after it goes into the back court.

The bold sentence at the end is directly from the NCAA rulebook, I did not add that in.

I understand everything that has been said in this thread and I'm sorry for bringing it back to the surface, but in reading rule 9-12-1 it says the following:
"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her backcourt when the ball came from the front court..."
Now I also realize that the A.R. posted is a direct interpretation of the rule, but it does seem to contradict it to an extent.

[kycat1]

I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

If it happens this way, I will NOT call an over and back violation!

[Raymond]

Though I personally like Ms. Struckhoff's interpretation, it is contridicted by the wording in FED 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 to the backcourt.

The current FED wording makes no mention of the play becoming legal if the balls itself regains f/c status.

I myself would like to see the rule changed so that the play is legal. But until then I would have to rule it a b/c violation.

There is really no debate for the NCAA interpretation b/c the A.R. specifically cites this play as a violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kycat1

I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

If it happens this way, I will NOT call an over and back violation!

1) The difference between the "back court" play and the "OOB" that Mary uses is that the ball went to the backcourt but was only "about to fly OOB". If, in the original play, the ball was "about to go the the back court" but was prevented from doing so by the official, I agree, there's no violation. Or, if in Mary's play, the ball hit the official who was OOB, the ball would be OOB.

2) It seems to be that a ball from the FC that goes BC, hits an official and returns to the FC should be treated the same as a ball that is in the BC, goes to the FC, hits an official and returns to the BC. 4.4.4B is the second (BC-FC-BC) play, and it's a violation. So, I think the first play (FC-BC-FC) should also be a violation.

[HawkeyeCubP]

The reason this is illegal is because the violating team would be using more of the court while in team control in their front court than is permissible by the (intended) rules. The best example of this is the trapped player in the FC near the division line reaching back and bounce-passing the ball so that it touches the backcourt or the (division line) on its way to another A player in the frontcourt. If you're in favor of this being legal, then logically, you should be in favor of having the division line be in effect only as a temporary boundary, relative only to ten-second backcourt rules - after which, by the logic of such a play being legal, (and until the team going the other direction gains team control,) the division line would essentially disappear for purposes of rule applications.

Just my opinion, of course.

Edited to include: This would give a new meaning to the term "spread offense."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2) It seems to be that a ball from the FC that goes BC, hits an official and returns to the FC should be treated the same as a ball that is in the BC, goes to the FC, hits an official and returns to the BC. 4.4.4B is the second (BC-FC-BC) play, and it's a violation. So, I think the first play (FC-BC-FC) should also be a violation.

Excellent analysis. To have a mirror play completely different would make no sense at all. To agree with Ms. Struckoff's tenative ruling above, 4.4.4B would have to be ruled legal also.

[Nevadaref]

kycat1, Thanks for following up on this issue. I admire your tenacity. I disagree with your rule interp, but that's not the point. It looks like a positive will come out of this in the manner of a clarification.

I can only hope that those on the NFHS committee can talk some sense into Ms. Struckhoff. The NFHS should not change its current rule, nor should it deviate from the NCAA ruling on this play. To do so would only make the HS game more confusing.

I sincerely hope that the NFHS just issues a clarification or adds a new case book play that is identical to the NCAA AR.

[cmathews]

ok here we go.... a question I got today.....A has the ball in the front court. A1 shoots the ball hits the rim, ball bounces toward the backcourt. A2 tips the ball but doesn't control it, the ball goes to the backcourt, where A3 recovers it. Backcourt violation?? My original thought was no. No team control, no backcourt....however

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 to the backcourt.

It doesn't say that the ball has to be in team control. If it has been in team control in the front court then is touched by A before going to back court where it is touched by A again.....It doesn't feel right to rule this way, but what is the reference that requires that the ball still be in team control when A is the last to touch it in the front court???

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cmathews

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 to the backcourt.

I'm thinking the interpretation is continous team control. The shot broke the chain of team control.

[bogref_jed]

I don't know which set of rules you guys are referring to but I think in FIBA the rule is:

a) Team Control
b) Last to touch in the frontcourt
c) First to touch in the backcourt

In that case I think it is not a violation, as A1 never touched the ball while it is in the backcourt. The 3rd criteria is missing. No violation.