The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 05:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
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)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:09pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
The thing that clears it up for me is. TEAM B never gained control.
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by truerookie
The thing that clears it up for me is. TEAM B never gained control.
What has that got to do with the situation?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
What has that got to do with the situation?
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.
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 07:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindzebra
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)
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".
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 07:32pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 07:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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".
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 08:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
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
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 08:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
I strongly suspect we'll see a correction issued on this one.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 08:39pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 08:40pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
I strongly suspect we'll see a correction issued on this one.
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FED 2007-2008 Interps Are Out bob jenkins Basketball 38 Tue Oct 16, 2007 02:42pm
NCAA-W Interps bob jenkins Basketball 30 Fri Jan 16, 2004 08:42am
NCAA Interps bob jenkins Basketball 5 Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:18pm
I made the interps! Nevadaref Basketball 5 Thu Oct 30, 2003 09:05am
Where do all those interps come from? Carl Childress Baseball 30 Sat Mar 03, 2001 11:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1