Situation 10 still bothers me.
 

From the NFHS website, the 2007-2008 interpretations:

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 would also mean:

1. A1 who is in backcourt and defended by B1 who is in A's frontcourt attempts to pass the ball to A2 who is in Team A's front court. B1, who is completely in Team A's frontcourt, jumps and deflects the pass such that it is deflected back to A1. The ball hits off A1 while still in the air. Violation???

2. This would also mean A1, dribbling in backcourt, but feet stradling the division line is guarded by B1 who is completely in Team A's frontcourt. B1 reaches and bats the ball off A1's leg. Violation???

3. This would also mean A1, dribbling in completely (both feet and ball) in backcourt near the division line is guarded by B1 who is completely in frontcourt. B1 reaches and bats the ball off A1's leg. Violation???

Am I understanding the interpretation correctly? If I am, then I disagree with the interpretation. :confused: :(

Ref in PA,
I think you are overlooking the rule regarding Team A having to be the last to touch the ball in their front court and the first to touch in their backcourt.

Splute, look at the sitch again. By most common thinking (mine included) B was the last to touch in the front court. That apparently isn't one of the criteria any more. Although I wish they'd have been more clear about stating that. It's certainly confusing enough as it is!!

What Juulie said.

I just think if the defense hits the ball, both teams should have equal right to go after the resulting loose ball and recover it cleanly - with out regard to where they are standing. Then, once possession is gained, then the location status can be defined.

I understand what they are trying to say with this interpretation, it just does not sit well with me. The follow on examples I gave above are logical conclusions based on the interpretaion which I think shows why it is a bad interpretation. Do others feel the same way? or am I alone with this?

This interpretation is kind of a natural extension of the interpretation situations 6 and 7 discussed in another thread - which also make no sense to me base on the wording of 9-9-3.

Unfortunately I disagree. In the Sit posted, A is the last to possess the ball while it still has frontcourt status. Therefore it is a violation. However I do not believe the questions that Ref in PA posted meet this criteria. I can not site the rule, but I do believe based on the questions posed, that Team A would have to be the last to touch in the frontcourt and first to touch in the backcourt. We do still allow Team A to pick up a deflected ball in backcourt after it touches the floor in the backcourt correct? For instance
Question 1. He did not say A1 caught the ball in the air, only that it deflected off of A1, which to me is the same as touching the floor and now A1 may pickup the ball without violating. Is my thinking incorrect?

No, Rule 9-9-1. Team A must first establish control in the frontcourt for a backcourt violation to occur.

No for both, Rule 4-4-6 and 9-9-1. The ball is still in the backcourt until both of the dribbler's feet and the ball touch in the frontcourt. Since team control has not been established in the frontcourt, there cannot be a backcourt violation.

This situation is simply wrong. We've debated it here before and it is in direct contradiction with the rule....where team a must be the first to touch after it goes into the back court and also the last to touch before it went to the backcourt. The rule is quite clear and has been unchanged for decades. Nowhere in any rule does it say that it is a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status.

Your examples show the absurdity of interpretation that sit. #10 suggests.


Furthermore, consider this additional case (inspired by yours):

4. A1, dribbling in the backcourt near the division line is guarded by B1 who is completely in frontcourt. B1 reaches and touches the ball between dribbles (ball on the way back up ) but not enough to prevent A1 from continuing the dribble. A1 continues to dribble (while still in the backcourt). Violation???

When B1 touched the ball it gains FC status. When A1 again touches the ball on the next dribble, it gained BC status. To be consistent with situation 10, this would have to be a violation on A1 since A1 caused the ball to have BC status.

Does ANYONE here think that this is REALLY what is intended? That B1 could force a turnover by merely touching the ball from across the division line while A1 is dribbling it??? That is what situation 10 implies. Again, situation 10 is simply wrong.

I expect a correction to come on on this situation. It may not come this year...but it will come.

When B1, standing in the FC, touches the ball it gains FC status. (4-4-2) Furthermore, this was not during a dribble from BC to FC (as 4-4-6 covers) since A1 was not crossing the line.

Rule 9-9-1

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Unlike Sit 10, none of those four "inspired" situations show that Team A had control in the frontcourt. The ball may have been in the frontcourt, but Team A never established control.

Altor,

Team A is under no requirement to "establish control" in frontcourt. Team control is already established. When the ball touches another player or the court in frontcourt, the ball then has frontcourt status, with Team A having team control. Just read situation 10 over again. Team A never "establishes control" in the front court, but they never lost team control because the ball was not shot, controled by team B or went oob. Yet the fed wants us to call a BC violation.

In all of my examples team control was never relenquished by team A. The touch of the ball by B1, who is if frontcourt, give the ball frontcourt status. So, after the touch by B1 and the ball is in the air, there is still team control by team A and the ball has frontcourt status. However, B1 was the last to touch the ball.

When A1 touches the ball in back court, the Fed is asking us to call the violation unless the ball has bounced first in the backcourt - which I think is an unusual stance to take, especially given the other examples of how that can happen.

You are correct. I just read 4-12. I didn't realize that team control continued through loose ball situations.

You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a BK official. I just like learning more about the various rules and idiosyncrasies about various sports. I'll go back to lurking now.

If A1 is in the front court.. and is passing to A2.. and B1 hits it but doesn't secure control and A2 goes and secures it in the BC...

My interpretation is that it is a BC violation. B1 never secured control so pos was with team A.

Now.. If A2 started to Dribble and B1 knocked it away then it would be loose ball and A2 can go and secure it.

Right??..

Team control continues during this loose ball.

So this too is a BC violation.. K.. I had it wrong. :o

In your first sitch, A1 in frontcourt, passing a ball ... you have Team A in control with the ball having frontcourt status. B1 deflects the ball ... team A still in control but now team B was the last to touch the ball. A2 then goes and secures it in back court. If the ball has bounced in back court after the deflection, the ball now has backcourt status and anyone can secure the ball legally - of that situation there is no debate. It is when A2, who is standing in backcourt touches the ball deflected by B1 before the ball has bounced in backcourt that has us scratching our heads - at least me.

In your second situation, more information is needed about the location of players.

Is it just me or do situations like this make more sense when you are actually witnessing it on the court...

The whole A1 and A1.. none of it does justice for me. I'm a visual guy. LOL

I have to cast my vote with Camron on this. The Situation 10 interpretation is just plain wrong.

In Situation 6, A2 is in the air with front court status when he/she catches the ball. That meets the 9-9-1 requirement that a team must be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. A2 meets both requirements just before and just after landing in backcourt.

In Situation 10, even though A2 causes the ball to have backcourt status and team A had team control and the ball had front court status, team A is not the last to touch the ball in the front court, B1 is.

Rule 9-9-2 doesn't apply to this situation because it includes the statement "without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt".

I disagree. A2 is the last to touch the ball in front court. Per your statement here, A2 has front court status, the ball has front court status and then A2 grabs the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. A2 caused the ball to have backcourt status by coming down with it in the backcourt. It should be a violation. If A2 lets it bounce in the backcourt after B1 deflects, it is not a backcourt violation because B1 caused it to gains backcourt status.
Furthermore I do not believe a pass from A1 (backcourt), deflected by B1 (frontcourt) and then touching A1 again in backcourt causes a backcourt violation because of the 9-9-1 rule.

NFHS Situation 10 doesn't have airborne A2 grabbing the ball and then landing. Everyone (?) would agree that's a violation (assuming A2 left the ground from the frontcourt). In NFHS situation 10, A2 is standing in the backcourt and catches teh ball (and the ball has FC location until touched).

I agree with posts #1 and #7 in this thread.

Ref in PA,
You are correct that all three of your plays would be violations under the new interpretation. That is why interp #10 is just plain silly. It won't last. It can't last.

Camron,
My thoughts exactly. Nice post.

Thanks, Bob. I misread or read into the Sit. I keep loosing this server today and too many interruptions from work... haha. Now I see why the discussion has been on who touched it last.... that said, I still do not see the distinction because it does not have backcourt status until A2 catches it. Thus, in my mind, A2 caused the ball to gain backcourt status; not B1. Had A2 let the ball land in the backcourt, then caught it, would everyone agree it is not a violation? Is the scenario of A2 catching it in the backcourt giving it backcourt status really any different than if A2 caught it OOBs? A2 caused it to be OOB.... just my thoughts.... I do not have an issue with this Sit.

I do agree it is splitting hairs on the call. I suppose the coach must instruct his players to always let it hit in the backcourt first. This in my opinion gives the defense a slight advantage. However, I believe we discussed similar issues with the Sit regarding the throw-in deflection. I believe the consensus in that thread was that the throwin team was in control of the pass and in control of their on destiny (if you will); wouldnt that also apply here?

I was not refering to differences of the violations, rather to the point that you are where you are till you get where you are going; ball status and court status. That position will determine if a violation ensues (yes it is a violation to cause the ball to go OOB). To me the point of the interp is basic to court status. Thus I understand the logic behind this interp; but I keep most things simple and try to take them as they are stated. Others prefer to do "what if scenarios" and look beyond the basic concept of the interp. Isnt what is stated in the Sit fundamentally true?
I also believe this could give the defense a slight advantage because once the ball is tipped they may immediately grab it where the offense may have to let it bounce once, etc.

That's not it. "You are where you were till you get where you're going."

You are always where you are. That tells you nothing.

And: it scans better if you contract the last "you are." :p

You guys crack me up :) .... from the famous words of Animal House... I wasted 7 years of college for this...

But, Splute, the point is that "who confers BC status" has never been part of the definition of BC violation before. If this is really what the interp intends, then they needed to make a bigger deal out of this change. It's a fundamental difference in the definition of what constitutes the violation.

I appreciate your patience with me and these are strickly my views based on the reading.
We all (?) agree that if B1 deflects the ball into the backcourt and the ball touches the backcourt, Team A may recover no violation. We all (?) agree that if B1 deflects a pass and a Team A player with frontcourt status catches the ball in the air and lands in their backcourt; it is a backcourt violation. Therefore in my mind the same is true if Team A catches (in the air, ball has not touched bc) a deflection that has frontcourt status, while standing in their backcourt gives the ball backcourt status and a team backcourt violation. It bites, but it seems fundamentally the same to me.
I will start over and re-read this post from the beginning to see if I have a brain block or just bain dramage :)

Note that "cause the ball to go OOB" is specifically defined in the book and specifically includes "touching a player OOB before touching something else" (see 7-2-1 second clause and 7-2-2). These same qualification don't (or at least didn't) apply to BC violations.

I guess you're too cracked up to get it right. :p

Harold Ramis is cringing somewhere.

In college, I stayed in the residence which was home to all the events that led to the creation of Animal House.

We lived up to history and did some crazy stuff. Including p* raids. :p

Thanks mbyron and wish I had been with ya Juggling....

AgreeAgree...and the reason is A was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status (catching it in the air while having FC stats) and was then the first to touch it AFTER gaining backcourt status (by landing in the backcourt while holding the ball)But WHO was the LAST to touch it BEFORE it gained backcourt status? (Remember that a player can't can't possibly touch the ball before he touches the ball.)
The RULE, as written, is all about the timing of who touches the ball before/after the ball gains backcourt status. It is not about the status of the ball before/after it gains backcourt status.

I see your point and Bob's and Juulie's.... if the ONLY way you can have a BC Violation is by Rule 9-9-1, I must concede. I let Sits. sway my thinking that Ball Status could be a factor, regardless of who touched last in FC.
Thanks...