New interps Sitch # 10

[JRutledge]

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.

I just received the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook and I want to know how this play is any different than the ruling the NF gives on page 111.

This play has A4 who is the thrower during a throw-in passes the ball to A10 who is standing the FC. The throw-in pass bounces off of A10 and goes into the BC. According to this ruling, this is not a BC violation because there was no team control established

Peace

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just received the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook and I want to know how this play is any different than the ruling the NF gives on page 111.

This play has A4 who is the thrower during a throw-in passes the ball to A10 who is standing the FC. The throw-in pass bounces off of A10 and goes into the BC. According to this ruling, this is not a BC violation because there was no team control established

Peace

Sit 10 says a pass in the front court, not a throw-in pass from the frontcourt, so team control was established before the pass.

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.

[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.

[blindzebra]

Think about the ball the same way you explain a player in the air...the ball is where it was until it gets where it's going.

The ball is in the FC until it hits in the BC, so when team A touches it they touch it with FC status and give it BC status at the same time...thus last to touch/first to touch.

It makes perfect sense to me, as it did several months ago when that is exactly what Tony and I said.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Think about the ball the same way you explain a player in the air...the ball is where it was until it gets where it's going.

The ball is in the FC until it hits in the BC, so when team A touches it they touch it with FC status and give it BC status at the same time...thus last to touch/first to touch.

It makes perfect sense to me, as it did several months ago when that is exactly what Tony and I said.

9-9-1: .......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 not a grammar expert, but "in the frontcourt" is a prepositional phrase. Does this phrase modify he/she or a teammate, or does it modify ball? If the former is true, it flatly doesn't work. The player in question was not "in the frontcourt" when he/she touched the ball. If it modifies ball, it is a bit more difficult. True, the ball still had frontcourt status and was still in team A control. But, your explanation that the touch with FC status giving it BC status "at the same time" is contradicted by the adverb "before" which describes when this must take place in relation to the touch/violation in the backcourt.

If this clears it up for anybody, then you can explain it to me.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Think about the ball the same way you explain a player in the air...the ball is where it was until it gets where it's going.

The ball is in the FC until it hits in the BC, so when team A touches it they touch it with FC status and give it BC status at the same time...thus last to touch/first to touch.

It makes perfect sense to me, as it did several months ago when that is exactly what Tony and I said.

So what you're saying is that if B in FC tips it and then it bounces in BC and THEN A touches or gets in BC, no violation?

...B in BC tips it and then A touches or gets in BC, no violation?


BUT

...B in FC tips and then ball passes directly to A in BC who touches or gets, that's the violation?

Not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to clarify.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

So what you're saying is that if B in FC tips it and then it bounces in BC and THEN A touches or gets in BC, no violation?

...B in BC tips it and then A touches or gets in BC, no violation?


BUT

...B in FC tips and then ball passes directly to A in BC who touches or gets, that's the violation?

Not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to clarify.

That is exactly what the interp is saying, the ball needs to gain BC status before team A touches it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

That is exactly what the interp is saying, the ball needs to gain BC status before team A touches it.

Okay, well, I guess I see what they're saying. I just can't imagine trying to explain it to coaches. It's just too convoluted and complicated, and goes against what seems like the clear meaning of "last to touch". I really hope someone will knock some sense into the Rules Committee (like the V-8 ads!) and give us an interp we can use in the real world. Generally, I can see where their interps are coming from, and what the underlying principles are, but this is just too arcane. Makes the Infield Fly Rule look like a kindergarten game.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, well, I guess I see what they're saying. I just can't imagine trying to explain it to coaches. It's just too convoluted and complicated, and goes against what seems like the clear meaning of "last to touch". I really hope someone will knock some sense into the Rules Committee (like the V-8 ads!) and give us an interp we can use in the real world. Generally, I can see where their interps are coming from, and what the underlying principles are, but this is just too arcane. Makes the Infield Fly Rule look like a kindergarten game.

Coach: Why?

You: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: Oh, okay.

Doesn't sound so hard to explain to me.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Coach: Why?

You: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: Oh, okay.

Doesn't sound so hard to explain to me.

Well then you're dealing with some exceptional coaches. This is more like my experience.

Coach: What the....?? No way! Weren't you looking?? B clearly touched it. I can't believe you didn't seen that.

Me: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: Oh, for Pete's sake, this is high school ball. You can't seriously expect these kids to understand rules like that. I don't think that's even in there. You just really need to get with someone to explain it to you. No one else ever calls it that way [which btw is true!] and you're reading something in there that just isn't part of the rule.

Me: Coach, this is the approved interpretation which I know is correct. Others have to call what they see, but I know I'm right about this.

Coach: (looking at opposing coach) Have you ever heard of this before? I didn't think so. It's bizarre. Of all the weird, twisted interpretations... I'm gonna call your assignor and get this straightened out, you just don't get it.

Me: Thank you coach, now let's get back to the game.

Coach: mumble, mumble, mumble

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Well then you're dealing with some exceptional coaches. This is more like my experience.

Or even,

Coach: What!?!? B touched it! Didn't you see that??

Me: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: But B touched it! what's going on here? How can you call that?

Me: Coach, the ball didn't have BC status before your player touched it.

Coach: That's just mumbo-jumbo. You're trying to make an excuse because you weren't really looking. It's ridiculous. That was not a violation! I've studied the rules for years and you can't call that!! What's going on here?

Me: Coach, we're going on with the game now. Please remember your box.

Coach: Don't try to brush me off!! You can't even explain that call! It's just too awful for words! Why can't you even tell me what she did wrong?

Me: Coach, I've heard enough. Get back to the bench and your players.

Coach: You're terrible!! You have no clue!! Why isn't your partner bailing you out here?!?! You aren't even listening!!

Me: (thinking, 'Please don't make me do this') Whack!

[blindzebra]

Perhaps it's your delivery?

Sometimes it isn't what you say, it's how you say it...if it's matter of fact, this is gospel, take it to the bank, in your tone very rarely will you not get an oh, okay.

It's like on Seinfeld when George gives Jerry advise on beating a lie detector...it's not a lie if you believe it.

I find that if I present it with confidence it pretty much ends right there.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Or even,

Coach: What!?!? B touched it! Didn't you see that??

Me: Coach, the ball needs to land in the BC before you touch it when the defense deflects it back there.

Coach: But B touched it! what's going on here? How can you call that?

Me: Coach, the ball didn't have BC status before your player touched it.

Coach: That's just mumbo-jumbo. You're trying to make an excuse because you weren't really looking. It's ridiculous. That was not a violation! I've studied the rules for years and you can't call that!! What's going on here?

Me: Coach, we're going on with the game now. Please remember your box.

Coach: Don't try to brush me off!! You can't even explain that call! It's just too awful for words! Why can't you even tell me what she did wrong?

Me: Coach, I've heard enough. Get back to the bench and your players.

Coach: You're terrible!! You have no clue!! Why isn't your partner bailing you out here?!?! You aren't even listening!!

Me: (thinking, 'Please don't make me do this') Whack!

Or even....

Me: Coach, it's a violation. I'll explain why at the next time-out or between periods.

If he doesn't want to accept that, whack.

And when you do explain it, you explain it using a simple, one-sentence statement like BZ recommended above. You say it once and then walk away. Iow, you explain it; you don't debate it. If the coach doesn't understand your explanation, that's his/her fault, not yours.


Way too much unnecessary talking by yourself imo, Juulie. Debating instead of quickly explaining a call is a true game interrupter. And you're also taking way too much abuse during the unnecessary talking, also imo.

[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.