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.

[Mountaineer]

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!

I don't think anyone actually called you stupid. I would question your state rules interpreter though. WOW! I'm just curious about his interpretation of the wording "first to touch". I'd be very curious to see what Mary Struckoff would say . . . although I'm pretty sure I know what she'd say.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

This is one area where I think FIBA actually has a better rule. As I understand it from what has been posted here before, when the ball touches in the backcourt after last being touched in the frontcourt by an offensive player, it is a backcourt violation. There is no need for an offensive player to be the first to touch it.

It is treated almost the same as if the division line were a sideline. When you think of it like this, the call is obvious.

The only thing I don't like about the FIBA rule is it takes away the opportunity for the defense to take the ball right away and score, or at least keep the ball, and keep the clock running without having another OOB play. The FIBA rule makes calling the violation easier, but the Fed. rule keeps the ball in play longer.

[kycat1]

Gentlemen,
When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.
I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.
I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

And, that's where you would be wrong. In NFHS, it doesn't matter if the ball makes it back to the front court before it's touched. It only matters if the points are followed - offense was the last to touch in the front court, and the offense is the first to touch it after it has been in the back court.

Jimgolf mentioned the FIBA rule, where it becomes a violation the instant the ball gains back court status. Think of the Fed. rule almost like a "delayed" violation. If the defense touches it first, play on. If the offense touches it, violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
1) When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.

2) I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

1) That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about ball striking a player who is completely in the front court after the ball has been in the back court.

2) And you're still completely wrong because you don't have any comprehension of how the rule works. The ball having front court position is also completely irrelevant after the ball enters the back court. It doesn't matter at all where the ball is subsequently touched. All that matters, by rule, is who is the first to touch the ball after it went into the back court.

That's a pretty basic rule there that you're completely screwing up, cat. It might be a good idea on your part to find a rule interpreter somewhere and run it by them. You obviously don't believe any of us.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,
When the ball strikes the division line or the player strikes the division line that ball and / or player now has backcourt position based on the rules.
I never said anything about a ball that has backcourt position and being touched by a player in front court as being legal. I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

Okay, I'll gladly change the play for you.

I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, hits the floor in the FC, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Yes, it is.

Look at the rule. There's no requirement that the ball be touched while in the backcourt.

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.

#1 - You as A2 are the first to touch the ball
#2 - Our team has team control
#3 - I was standing in the FC when I passed it to you, so FC status has been attained.
#4 - I was the last player to touch it "before it went to the backcourt."

I can't make it any simplier than that. If you aren't willing to listen to others' ideas, you're wasting your time posting here, especially when everyone else here is telling you the same thing: that you're wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Okay, I'll gladly change the play for you.

I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, hits the floor in the FC, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Yes, it is.

Look at the rule. There's no requirement that the ball be touched while in the backcourt.

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.

#1 - You as A2 are the first to touch the ball
#2 - Our team has team control
#3 - I was standing in the FC when I passed it to you, so FC status has been attained.
#4 - I was the last player to touch it "before it went to the backcourt."

I can't make it any simplier than that. If you aren't willing to listen to others' ideas, you're wasting your time posting here, especially when everyone else here is telling you the same thing: that you're wrong.

Said another way...

The only legal way for a ball to go from A1 (in the froncourt) to A2 and touch the backcourt on the way (or A2 in the backcourt) is for a player from team B to contact the ball between the touches by A1 and A2.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm standing in the FC, holding the ball. I bounce pass to you, the ball hits the division line, hits the floor in the FC, you catch the ball while completely standing in the FC. Is this a BC violation? Yes, it is.

Here's my changed version:

A1 is standing in the frontcourt in the FT semi-circle. He has the ball. He turns around and throws the ball so that it strikes his opponents backboard in the backcourt and rebounds back towards him. The ball bounces on the floor in the frontcourt at the top of the key and A1 then catches it, having never moved from his original position. No other player touched the ball at anytime during this sequence.

Is this a BC violation KYcat?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by kycat1

I said a ball that has front court position, being touched or caught by a player with frontcourt position is a legal play in any rule book!

The following post demonstrates that your claim is clearly incorrect!

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.

Sorry, bud, but you're just going to have to admit that you are wrong on this one. It's okay though. You learned something new and that is how you improve.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, bud, but you're just going to have to admit that you are wrong on this one. It's okay though. You learned something new and that is how you improve.

I guess time will tell.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

This is one area where I think FIBA actually has a better rule. As I understand it from what has been posted here before, when the ball touches in the backcourt after last being touched in the frontcourt by an offensive player, it is a backcourt violation. There is no need for an offensive player to be the first to touch it.

It is treated almost the same as if the division line were a sideline. When you think of it like this, the call is obvious.

This is not true. The FIBA rule is very similar to the USA one(s). It is not at all similar to an OOB situation, nor there is a "delayed violation".

However, in the case under consideration, we would not call a violation, because 30.1.2 mentions explicitly "touch the ball in the backcourt".

As usual, the FIBA rule is definitely worse; for example, there is no special case when the dribbler goes from backcourt to frontcourt. Just imagine: if one foot has touched the FC and the other is in the BC, it is theoretically a violation to lift the foot in the FC. Of course we teach to look not so closely in those situations.

Ciao

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

This is not true. The FIBA rule is very similar to the USA one(s).

Thanks for the clarification. I thought someone had posted that it was not necessary for a player to touch the ball elsewhere on the forum, but I must have misunderstood the post.

Never mind.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

Sigh.....

Completely wrong.