backcourt

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by cmathews

ok here we go.... a question I got today.....A has the ball in the front court. OK! A1 shoots the ball hits the rim, ball bounces toward the backcourt. NO TEAM CONTROL A2 tips the ball but doesn't control it,NO PLAYER OR TEAM CONTROL the ball goes to the backcourt, where A3 recovers it.OK! Backcourt violation?? NO! 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. Think of it this way.

Scenerio: A-1 dribbles the ball into team A FC the ball is passed to A3 located at the Free throw line. A3 attempts a pass back to A1 A3 pass is tipped by B4 the tipped pass touches A1 who is standing near the division line. Backcourt!! This fits the situation you mentioned above.

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???

per rule 4-12.

[cmathews]

Truerookie,
With all due respect, your posted situation, does not fit the one I posted. In your situation, there is still team control. This is my point the rule says "shall not be the first to touch the ball in back court AFTER it has been in team control in the front court..."

Badnews, I am looking for something that substantiates the interpretation you mention...As I see it now there isn't any. That is why I am having the dilema this morning. Before yesterday if A1 shoots the ball after having team control in the front court, and the rebound went towards the back court was tipped by A2 and recovered in the back court by A3, I would have played on.....Today, I am thinking back court. This is why.

1 Team A had control in the front court
2 Team A was the last to touch the ball before it went to the back court
3 Team A was the first to touch the ball in the back court....

As the rule is written 2 and 3 occured after team A had team control in the front court......therefore a violation....like I said I don't like the feel of it, and I need some rules citations to make me "fell" better LOL....

[bob jenkins]

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.

You're being too literal. By your interpretation, we'd have many more violations because the ball has been in TC in the FC after the first posession by each team (in most games).