Backcourt Question

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now, I did find case play 4.4.4(b) that addresses this very play. And it refers to 9-9-2.

Very nice, sir. Now that makes it clear how the NFHS wants this play called. Now all they have to do is amended 9-9-2 to match the casebook play, since the current 9-9-2 doesn't contain the word "teammate."


9-9-2 ... While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, and be the first to touch it in the backcourt.

4.4.4 SITUATION: The official is in Team A's frontcourt when he/she is contacted by a pass thrown by A1 from Team A's backcourt. After touching the official, the ball: (a) goes out of bounds; or (b) rebounds to the backcourt where it is recovered by A2. RULING: Touching the official is the same as touching the floor where the official is standing. In (a), the ball is awarded to B for a throw-in. In (b), the ball has been in the frontcourt and then has gone to the backcourt while in Team A's control. It is a violation for A1 to cause the ball to go from A's backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt untouched if A1 or a teammate is first to touch it after it has returned to backcourt. (9-9-2)

Now can you find anything for my other scenario which tests the words "in the backcourt" in 9-9-1?

[bigdog5142]

WOW...great discussion...didn't know my little question would get so much play! Glad that we can discuss this stuff and get some GOOD answers!

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I do not deny that there are some case plays which are inconsistent with the rules. I simply take the position that those case plays are wrong and that the people who wrote them did a poor job of interpreting the text. They eventually should be overturned. It is my opinion that the actual text always carries more weight than some play ruling because that's what the RULE is.

If anyone has a copy of the case book handy, doesn't it state somewhere that in the event of an apparent disagreement between the rule book and the case book that the case book interpretation takes precedence? Doesn't it also state that the case book is considered part of the rulebook?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

If anyone has a copy of the case book handy, doesn't it state somewhere that in the event of an apparent disagreement between the rule book and the case book that the case book interpretation takes precedence? Doesn't it also state that the case book is considered part of the rulebook?

At the front of the case book is the following statement:
"The basketball case book has been designated as an official supplement to the rule book by the NFHS" It also states "The interpretations and rulings for all play situations have been approved by the rules committee and are official."

So, case book plays are basically just further official explanations of written rules. All case book plays are official rules, no matter what Nevada says, thinks, personally likes, etc.