Oh My Gosh!

[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....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by kbilla

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

Is it a requirement?
Team has control.
Ball gains FC status.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it a requirement?
Team has control.
Ball gains FC status.

Yeah I suppose you do have team control, albeit during an interrupted dribble when tipped...and you do have FC "status" for the ball...even more reason why this interp is BS....

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it a requirement?
Team has control.
Ball gains FC status.

Although the more I think about it, there is no team control in the FC in your example. I think the way the rule is written, there needs to be team control with both the team A players and the ball in the FC before you can have a BC violation..we at least have this much in this bogus interp...I still think this interp is BS, but I don't think we can extrapolate it to this point...JMHO..

[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.

[Nevadaref]

And in Snaqs play Team A has team control and the ball has FC status after B2 batted it up into the air. So by the new interp, it is a BC violation when A2 catches the ball without letting it bounce.

PS kbilla this is NOT an interrupted dribble. The dribble has ended when B2 knocked the ball away.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And in Snaqs play Team A has team control and the ball has FC status after B2 batted it up into the air. So by the new interp, it is a BC violation when A2 catches the ball without letting it bounce.

PS kbilla this is NOT an interrupted dribble. The dribble has ended when B2 knocked the ball away.

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...

Notice, there's no "and" in the rule.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BLydic

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.

The thing to remember is that it is not a violation ot cause the ball to get to the BC. That is where it is different from OOB calls.

[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.