Situation 10 still bothers me.

[Ref in PA]

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.

[Splute]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Splute

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!!

[Ref in PA]

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.

[Splute]

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?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

From the NFHS website, the 2007-2008 interpretations:
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???

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

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

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???

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

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.

[Altor]

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.

[Ref in PA]

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.

[Altor]

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.

[Bearfanmike20]

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??..

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

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.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Team control continues during this loose ball.

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

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

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??..

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.