Oh My Gosh!

[Zoochy]

This is straight from the NFHS.org web page on 2007-2008 Basketball 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)"

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx

It's the same as question 76 in the IAABO refresher test. This ruling says A2 has caused the violation. So based on the IAABO answer, they disagree with NFHS.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

This is straight from the NFHS.org web page on 2007-2008 Basketball 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)"

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx

It's the same as question 76 in the IAABO refresher test. This ruling says A2 has caused the violation. So based on the IAABO answer, they disagree with NFHS.

The guy who wrote the test disagrees. It is likely to see IAABO rule an incorrect answer on that question.

[26 Year Gap]

Official word from Peter Webb on IAABO #74 is that the throw in was not legally touched. The new throw in is due to the kick. The AP arrow stays where it was. The official answer on the test is indeed wrong.

Have not heard back on #76 yet.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

This is straight from the NFHS.org web page on 2007-2008 Basketball 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)"

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx

It's the same as question 76 in the IAABO refresher test. This ruling says A2 has caused the violation. So based on the IAABO answer, they disagree with NFHS.

The situation may say that...but it is wrong. The situation you reference is in direct contradiction with the rule book. It is never a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. Its a violation to be the last team to touch the ball before and the first team to touch the ball after the ball gains BC status (while in team control). This rule has been this way for decades and the rule is still that way.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The situation may say that...but it is wrong. The situation you reference is in direct contradiction with the rule book. It is never a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. Its a violation to be the last team to touch the ball before and the first team to touch the ball after the ball gains BC status (while in team control). This rule has been this way for decades and the rule is still that way.

Let's see...NFHS 9.9.1 states "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the front court, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt"

I agree with Camron on this one, the kicker to me is "if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt". What it comes down to is what does "touched by the ball in the frontcourt" mean? Do they mean "touched by the ball while the player has FC status", or "touched by the ball while the ball has FC status". I would contend that they are referring to being touched by the ball while the player has FC status. The ball cannot have FC and BC status at the same time, and this is what you would have to imply to call a BC violation here. You would have to say that A1 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and A1 is also the first to touch it in the BC. Well since A1 touched it only once, how can A1 cause the ball to have both FC & BC status at the same time? If you believe as I do that the rule means that a teammate cannot be the last to touch the ball while the player has FC status, then this interp runs counter to the rule...that being said, the interp is what it is...the question then is how are you going to call this, in keeping with the interp or the rule? I suppose I will follow the interp even though I don't agree it is consistent, at least you have a leg to stand on by following it..

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The situation may say that...but it is wrong. The situation you reference is in direct contradiction with the rule book. It is never a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. Its a violation to be the last team to touch the ball before and the first team to touch the ball after the ball gains BC status (while in team control). This rule has been this way for decades and the rule is still that way.

I totally disagree. I don't have current rule books with me but the online version of 9-1-1 says... 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. It does not say the ball has to have BC status before the player touches it to rule this a BC violation. Team had team control in the FC, A2 is the last to touch it in the FC and lands in the BC.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BLydic

I totally disagree. I don't have current rule books with me but the online version of 9-1-1 says... 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. It does not say the ball has to have BC status before the player touches it to rule this a BC violation. Team had team control in the FC, A2 is the last to touch it in the FC and lands in the BC.

What if B2 is the last to touch in the FC, and instead of the ball landing in the BC, it is caught by A1 in the BC before the ball ever bounces in the BC?

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What if B2 is the last to touch in the FC, and instead of the ball landing in the BC, it is caught by A1 in the BC before the ball ever bounces in the BC?

I'll rule a BC violation. B2 is last to touch the ball in the FC but not the last to touch the ball while the ball still has FC status. I hope I'm not contradicting myself here.

What if B2 is the last to touch in bounds, and instead of the ball landing out of bounds, it is caught by A1 out of bounds before the ball ever bounces out of bounds? A1 caused the violation, No? Granted, it's comparing granny smiths with macintosh, but in my little brain they're still apples.

[Adam]

Okay, now consider this play.
A1 dribbling from BC to front court. While he's still standing in the BC, B1 reaches and swats the ball (now ending the dribble and the accompanying "three points" requirement thus giving the ball FC status while still maintaining Team A control) into the air behind A1. B1 is standing completely in the FC. A1 steps back and catches the ball before it hits the floor.

By your interp, this is a violation.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, now consider this play.
A1 dribbling from BC to front court. While he's still standing in the BC, B1 reaches and swats the ball (now ending the dribble and the accompanying "three points" requirement thus giving the ball FC status while still maintaining Team A control) into the air behind A1. B1 is standing completely in the FC. A1 steps back and catches the ball before it hits the floor.

By your interp, this is a violation.

Is it though? Team A never had TC in the FC, a requirement of 9.9.1....

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, now consider this play.
A1 dribbling from BC to front court. While he's still standing in the BC, B1 reaches and swats the ball (now ending the dribble and the accompanying "three points" requirement thus giving the ball FC status while still maintaining Team A control) into the air behind A1. B1 is standing completely in the FC. A1 steps back and catches the ball before it hits the floor.

By your interp, this is a violation.

No, my interp requires Team A to have control of the ball in the FC. Your twist on the situation doesn't provide that.

Look, I'll agree that there's a gray area around the "last to touch or be touched in the frontcourt" and that part could be construed as missing from the requirements needed to call a BC violation. But, I can't bring myself to say that B2 caused the ball to go in the BC, may have helped it along but the ball still had FC status when A2 caught the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BLydic

I'll rule a BC violation. B2 is last to touch the ball in the FC but not the last to touch the ball while the ball still has FC status. I hope I'm not contradicting myself here.

You are.

A's touch in the backcourt gives the ball backcourt status simultaneous with the touch. Agree? Now, consider this part of the rule: "touched...the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt". Who was the last person to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt? B2.

Basically, you draw a line in time at the very instant the ball gains BC status. If the last player to touch the ball before that point in time was team A and the first player after that point in time was team A, you have a violation. (Assuming team control).

Originally Posted by BLydic

What if B2 is the last to touch in bounds, and instead of the ball landing out of bounds, it is caught by A1 out of bounds before the ball ever bounces out of bounds? A1 caused the violation, No? Granted, it's comparing granny smiths with macintosh, but in my little brain they're still apples.

It's not close enough to compare...having the ball go to the BC is not a violation as going OOB is.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A's touch in the backcourt gives the ball backcourt status simultaneous with the touch. Agree?

Totally agree.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Now, consider this part of the rule: "touched...the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt". Who was the last person to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt? B2Basically, you draw a line in time at the very instant the ball gains BC status. If the last player to touch the ball before that point in time was team A and the first player after that point in time was team A, you have a violation. (Assuming team control).

I agree B2 is the last to touch player in the FC to touch the ball. I'm just having a problem with saying B2 caused the ball to get to the BC.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It's not close enough to compare...having the ball go to the BC is not a violation as going OOB is.

And it's these analogies that continue to haunt me.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BLydic

I'll rule a BC violation. B2 is last to touch the ball in the FC but not the last to touch the ball while the ball still has FC status. I hope I'm not contradicting myself here.

Using this logic, every tip by the defense would be a violation. That is not how the rule is written.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Using this logic, every tip by the defense would be a violation. That is not how the rule is written.

I never implied every, if the ball gains BC status (bouncing once in the BC would do) prior to A2 grabbing the ball I would have nothing.