New interps Sitch # 10
 

blindzebra posted

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.

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

I don't really like it, but at least it's consistent with how we call out of bounds violations. If you're standing out of bounds and catch the ball, you caused it to go out. If you let it bounce out of bounds and then catch it, you haven't done anything illegal. Same principle in the backcourt. Makes sense.

The thing that clears it up for me is. TEAM B never gained control.

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

What has that got to do with the situation?

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.

Team Control is what I'm looking it. Correct me if I did not comprehend the situation properly. Team A haS control in the FC. There was a pass between A1 AND A2 B deflects the pass towards it own goal but before the ball touches B FC A2 catches the pass. B never establish team control.

This flies COMPLETELY in the face of the rule. What happened the requirement that team A be the last to touch "before" going into the backcourt? This case completely fails that criteria.

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

I completely agree. This is really an interpretation that does not make sense considering what the actual rule is.

It sounds like someone just wanted to put their stamp on the new rule by creating an interpretation that made them feel important.

Peace

Camron,
I don't care for the ruling either, but what the NFHS is saying is that A2 was the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status and is also the first to touch the ball once it gains backcourt status.

Personally, I think that A2 should only be considered to be the first to touch it in the backcourt, not also the last to touch for frontcourt purposes.

New play: A3 in his backcourt throws a pass towards A4 who is standing in the frontcourt. B5 jumps from his backcourt and deflects the pass. The ball remains in the air, never touching the court as it rebounds directly to A3 who catches it while standing in the same location in his backcourt.
According to the new interp, this is a backcourt violation. That doesn't mesh with the intent of the rule or case book play 9.9.1 Sit C. :(

Or someone\'s been calling it wrong for 30 years and just found out but, rather than admit error, they pushed an interpretation to match what they thought it had been.

I strongly suspect we\'ll see a correction issued on this one.

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 disagree with you there. I do not think for a second that they will change. The typical NF modus operandi is to just sit on the ruling and change it in the future. I would be shocked if they came back with a different ruling.

Peace