backcourt

[lukealex]

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 isn't quite right, B1 can pick up the ball if it goes into the backcourt being last touched by team A without violation.

[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!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by kycat1

... (since many of you thought I was stupid for thinking that this could possibly NOT be a backcourt violation!)

We didn't think you were stupid for not thinking it was a backcourt violation, we thought you were stupid for not reading the rules references that were being posted.

You state interpreter may be related to Kurt Whats-his-name in Illinois.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

We didn't think you were stupid for not thinking it was a backcourt violation, we thought you were stupid for not reading the rules references that were being posted.

You state interpreter may be related to Kurt Whats-his-name in Illinois.

Hey, don't be raggin' on Illinois. I might hafta' send Mr. Urlacher over to straighten you out...

I would be curious to see if kycat1's interpreter comes back with a specific rules reference to back up the response. Of course, it could be like Kurt Whats-his-name's response, an off-the-cuff response without actually checking it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would be curious to see if kycat1's interpreter comes back with a specific rules reference to back up the response. Of course, it could be like Kurt Whats-his-name's response, an off-the-cuff response without actually checking it.

Jmo, but a likelier option might be kycat not giving the interpreter the play as written in this thread. I can't see any state interpreter...anywhere....screwing up this one. It's just too basic and easy a ruling to make.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jmo, but a likelier option might be kycat not giving the interpreter the play as written in this thread. I can't see any state interpreter...anywhere....screwing up this one. It's just too basic and easy a ruling to make.

Given the number of officials that come here that don't know the backcourt rule, do you really think is it not likely that at least 1 out of 50 state interpreters could get it wrong?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Given the number of officials that come here that don't know the backcourt rule, do you really think is it not likely that at least 1 out of 50 state interpreters could get it wrong?

Let me put it this way, Camron, I would hope not. And if one did, I would be surprised.

But, I guess stranger things have happened.....

It just isn't a tough call imo; it's pretty straightforward.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Gentlemen,

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!

Naw, just tell him to log on this site. We'll be glad to train him.

Sounds like he could really use some training.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You state interpreter may be related to Kurt Whats-his-name in Illinois.

LMOA !!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Naw, just tell him to log on this site. We'll be glad to train him.

Sounds like he could really use some training.

Now I'm ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Given the number of officials that come here that don't know the backcourt rule, do you really think is it not likely that at least 1 out of 50 state interpreters could get it wrong?

Sadly, I have to agree. There are just way too many officials out there who don't know the backcourt rule. Someone somewhere has to be teaching it incorrectly.

[Jurassic Referee]

It looks like it's time for BktBallRef's annual exam, methinks.

[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.....

[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.