New interps Sitch # 10

[Mark Padgett]

Here's how Juulie's conversation would go in our rec league:

Coach: "How can that be a violation? It was touched!"

Juulie: "Go argue with Mark."

Coach: "Oh. Never mind."


Here's an even more likely scenario:

Coach: "How can that be a violation? It was touched!"

Juulie: "Go argue with Mark."

Coach: "No thanks. I want to stay in the game (or "the league").

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But as I pointed out, it matches exactly the criteria for the ball gaining out of bounds status. If you're standing out of bounds and you catch the ball, then you caused the ball to be out of bounds.

If you're standing in the backcourt and you catch a ball from the frontcourt, then you caused the ball to be in the backcourt.

I don't really like it either, but I can see the justification.

But the rules about BC/FC also include a last to touch item which isn't part of the oob thing. Regardless of who touched it last, if you're standing on the boundary line when you touch the ball, then you've conferred your oob status onto the ball. But with BC, it only matters if your team was also the last to touch in FC, which in the case given Team A wasn't. B deflected it. I just don't understand what the heck they're playing at.

And the fact that B never gains team control is completely irrelevant, truerookie.

[rainmaker]

Okay, so I'm sitting here thinking and thinking and thinking about this. I think I see the logic now.

The logic is that A2 (standing in the back court, remember) is the last to touch before the ball attains BC status?? But then also the first to touch as BC status is conferred? That's just plain weird. There's no way I could ever, ever, ever explain that to a coach. And since the wateringhole wisdom is "Don't call it if you can't explain it", does that mean that for all practical purposes, this will never get called? I mean in reality, even if I'm right in calling it, if I'm the only one in my entire association, is it right?

WOW.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But as I pointed out, it matches exactly the criteria for the ball gaining out of bounds status. If you're standing out of bounds and you catch the ball, then you caused the ball to be out of bounds.

Yes, everyone agrees that this player is the one who caused the ball to be OOB, but just about no one says that this player was the last one to touch the ball while inbounds.
The same should hold true for a player standing in the backcourt. He should cause the ball to be in the backcourt. He shouldn't be considered to also be the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

As Tony and I said way back when A2 simultaneously was the last to touch/ first to touch because the ball still had FC status.

The NFHS needs to get rid of the concept of simultaneously doing two things with a single touch. The player needs to be considered to be merely the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, not both the first to do that and the last to touch in the frontcourt. Saying that it is both is just

Besides according to the text of the rule the player has to be "in the frontcourt" when the last touch occurs. He clearly isn't. A player from the opposing team was the last one to meet that requirement.

This is an asinine interpretation.
How can a player be the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt, if his first and only touch is the very one which causes it to be in the backcourt. He certainly didn't do anything with the ball BEFORE then.

I believe that the text of the rule should be rewritten and stated terms of the status of the ball. Something akin to ...a player shall not cause the status of the ball to change from frontcourt to backcourt, if the player or a teammate was .... I'll have to think about this and work on the wording, but it seems that stating it this way would be clearer.

[Ref in PA]

So, If I understand this correctly:

A1 is in the backcourt, near the division line. A1 attempts to throw a pass to A2 who is in frontcourt. B1, defending, is in A's frontcourt near the division line and jumps up and blocks the pass, which hits A1 on a fly who is still in backcourt.

This play would be a violation according to the way the interpretation given, correct?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But as I pointed out, it matches exactly the criteria for the ball gaining out of bounds status. If you're standing out of bounds and you catch the ball, then you caused the ball to be out of bounds.

If you're standing in the backcourt and you catch a ball from the frontcourt, then you caused the ball to be in the backcourt.

I don't really like it either, but I can see the justification.

The only problem with that is that causing the ball to go into the backcourt is not a violation....be being the team that is the last to touch before...and the first to touch after is the violatoin.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only problem with that is that causing the ball to go into the backcourt is not a violation....be being the team that is the last to touch before...and the first to touch after is the violatoin.

And those two things happen simultaneously in this scenario...the ball still has FC status until it touches something in the BC. So by player A running back there and catching it, thay ARE the last to touch a ball with FC status AND the first to touch the ball in the BC - all at the same time...as Scrappy-doo pointed out, it's the same as catching a deflected pass while standing oob...

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think they've got a bogus interp here....unless they're changing yet another longstanding rule by "interpretation".

If federal judges can change the laws of this country by doing that, why can't the NFHS?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I recall a very long and heated thread where only BBref and I agreed that team A catching a ball deflected into their back court but not yet landing in the back court was a violation on team A...seems situation 10 confirms us being correct.

Well, this is if it hits in frontcourt after the deflection, right?

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Well, this is if it hits in frontcourt after the deflection, right?

I don't think so, I believe they added that to make it clear that the ball hadn't gained back court status by bouncing in the BC.

Why would it bouncing in the FC make a difference? Team A had control, the ball has FC status until it touches or is touched in the BC.