Backcourt Question

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crazy voyager

...these are [...] points to make it easier for officials to learn what is a bc and what's not, they're not the rulebook.

That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.

The danger with using the four-point system is that one may try apply it when it is inappropriate to do so.
For example, the second point has been phrased as, "The player or a teammate was the last to touch the ball before it went to the backcourt." This criterion could be met without the player or teammate ever touching the ball in the frontcourt as is clearly required by 9-9-1. Thus the checklist would give a false positive.

The same could be said for the wording of the third point with regard to the backcourt and article 9-9-2.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The same could be said for the wording of the third point with regard to the backcourt and article 9-9-2.

A lot of things could be said about many things. I'm sure you'll contribute your fair share on this topic and if you keep going along these lines most of them will be wrong. You are once more using your faulty interpretation of the wording to mislead yourself (and others) as to the intent of the rule. IOW this discusison is just so much bullsh1t.

What is interesting to me though is that in your play A1 in the BC has in fact dribbled by rule when he passes the ball and it bounces back to him off the official standing in the FC. So the 3 points while dribbling guideline applies and A1 has not committed a BC violation in this play.

Anyone disagree with this?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What is interesting to me though is that in your play A1 in the BC has in fact dribbled by rule when he passes the ball and it bounces back to him off the official standing in the FC. So the 3 points while dribbling guideline applies and A1 has not committed a BC violation in this play.

Anyone disagree with this?

I concur that the actions of A1 do indeed meet the definition of a dribble and back in post #33 I asked which rule takes priority: 4-4-6 or 9-9-2.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For example, if a player is standing still in his backcourt a few feet from the division line and tosses the ball with backspin into the frontcourt where it bounces and returns untouched to the player who has not moved would that be a dribble and thus the ball never attained frontcourt status per 4-4-5 or would that be a violation of 9-9-2?

I have no reason for picking one rule over the other.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.

I disagree that the "actual text" is always correct. We have case plays that "clarify" the wording -- and are inconsistent with it. In general (or at least frequently), the case play overrides the text. We also have the "must understand the intent of the rules" guidleins, which implies that the literal reading of the rules is not always correct.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree that the "actual text" is always correct. We have case plays that "clarify" the wording -- and are inconsistent with it. In general (or at least frequently), the case play overrides the text. We also have the "must understand the intent of the rules" guidleins, which implies that the literal reading of the rules is not always correct.

Obviously, I don't agree with that position, bob. 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.

This is the way constitutional law works.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the way constitutional law works.

You do realize, don't you Nevada, that the NFHS rules aren't necessarily based on a constitutional system? You are just getting way too anal about all this, imo.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the way constitutional law works.

I though that, in this country, constitutional law works whatever way the President wants it to depending on his mood that day. At least, that's what it seems like lately.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Obviously, I don't agree with that position, bob. 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.

This is the way constitutional law works.

Ok, I'm jumping in a long way from the beginning of this conversation, but I would've thought NFHS case plays are no different than court rulings in law. The actual court rulings determine the "spirit and intent" of the written law, and in a lot of cases, expand upon it. Isn't it usually the case that the law is poorly written, and the court cases give guidance on how the law is to be interpreted? How many times do attorneys cite specific cases, rather than the actual law? Isn't this the reason for the NFHS case plays - to expand and explain the intent of the rule? If the Fed. decides they want a different interpretation, they will change the case play accordingly. Therefore, I would conclude case plays take precedence over any possibly unclear wording in the rule itself.

[Jurassic Referee]

WOBW

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

WOBW

Yea, I know.

But, sometimes I think the monkees are cute.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

WOBW

Waste Of Big Words?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Waste Of Big Words?

Waste Of Band Width.....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, I'm jumping in a long way from the beginning of this conversation, but I would've thought NFHS case plays are no different than court rulings in law. The actual court rulings determine the "spirit and intent" of the written law, and in a lot of cases, expand upon it. Isn't it usually the case that the law is poorly written, and the court cases give guidance on how the law is to be interpreted? How many times do attorneys cite specific cases, rather than the actual law? Isn't this the reason for the NFHS case plays - to expand and explain the intent of the rule? If the Fed. decides they want a different interpretation, they will change the case play accordingly. Therefore, I would conclude case plays take precedence over any possibly unclear wording in the rule itself.

All true, but the case law (court decisions) often go back and forth as different judges make rulings or one judge later changes his mind. My point is that the case rulings are temporary thoughts of some individuals while the text of the Constitution has only changed 27 times in the history of our country. It is more stable and when court decisions or federal statutes are made which conflict with it, those decisions and statutes get struck down.

The same is true for the NFHS committee members who may issue a case play or an official interpretation. Other people may or may not be in agreement as these rulings are subject to who sits on the NFHS rules committee at any one time. On the other hand the text of the rule book is less fleeting. Obviously the committee makes rule changes all the time and with much more frequency than the US Constitution is amended, but their rulings still needed to be based upon what is written in the rules book. If they issue something which is obviously in contradiction to the text of the rules, then logic dictates that the rule takes priority. Afterall we must enforce the rules as written!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

All true, but the case law (court decisions) often go back and forth as different judges make rulings or one judge later changes his mind. My point is that the case rulings are temporary thoughts of some individuals while the text of the Constitution has only changed 27 times in the history of our country. It is more stable and when court decisions or federal statutes are made which conflict with it, those decisions and statutes get struck down.

The same is true for the NFHS committee members who may issue a case play or an official interpretation. Other people may or may not be in agreement as these rulings are subject to who sits on the NFHS rules committee at any one time. On the other hand the text of the rule book is less fleeting. Obviously the committee makes rule changes all the time and with much more frequency than the US Constitution is amended, but their rulings still needed to be based upon what is written in the rules book. If they issue something which is obviously in contradiction to the text of the rules, then logic dictates that the rule takes priority. Afterall we must enforce the rules as written!

I think we might be comparing things differently. I look at the constitution similarly to the 20 Basketball Rules Fundamentals. Those are the basics; they have not changed in a while. The rules themselves are similar to the laws Congress passes - they might have changed based upon who is in power at the time, but they still need to conform the "basics", the rule fundamentals or the constitution. The constitution isn't concerned with, for example, how many years a person should be sentenced for a crime, just as the fundamentals aren't concerned with the specifics of a penalty (OOB, FT's, number of FT's, etc.). The case plays then expand on the rules, just like court cases expand on the laws that have been passed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If they issue something which is obviously in contradiction to the text of the rules, then logic dictates that the rule takes priority.

I disagree. Logic dictates whichever was issued last should take priority.
You're essentially saying the case plays are meaningless.