The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 03:12pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,632
Any thoughts on this play?

PLAY 5: 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 5: 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
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 03:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,613
No new thoughts. It's been discussed before.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 03:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 481
It is the way the Fed wants the play interpreted, but I don't like it. I hope they change the interpretation to say no violation because B was the last to touch it. We have discussed this before.

The extrapolation of this ruling leads to some very disturbing conclusions, my favorite being A1 is dribbling in back court. B1, who is completely in the front court of A reaches across the division line and bats the ball off of the leg of A1. Ruling would be violation if the above interpretation stands. Why? A has team control, ball obtains FC status from the touch of B1, ball touches A1 who is in backcourt. The fed wants us to interpret that as touching a ball with FC status in back court, causing the violation. Yet, A never brought the ball into FC.
__________________
I only wanna know ...
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 03:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Change the play to read ball going OOB instead of backcourt. OOB violation on A, B gets the ball. Same concept in your original sitch.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 05:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cheyenne, wyoming
Posts: 1,493
ok I can't find it....

What is the logic behind this being a BC violation?? BBR I searched and didn't see the threads discussing it.
__________________
The officials lament, or the coaches excuses as it were: "I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you"
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 05:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmathews
What is the logic behind this being a BC violation?? BBR I searched and didn't see the threads discussing it.
It's in the pre-season interps put out by NF. It happens to be Situation 10.

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

We've discussed in length in the past. There are some of us that think this in an absolutly idiotic interpretion of the spirit and intent of the backcourt rule. There are others that feel it is correct, and have not yet seen the error of their way of thinking.

I'm not sure where I stand on it, but I'll call it as written.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 05:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Change the play to read ball going OOB instead of backcourt. OOB violation on A, B gets the ball. Same concept in your original sitch.
When you say it like that, it sounds almost reasonable!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 06:00pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We've discussed in length in the past. There are some of us that think this in an absolutely idiotic interpretation of the spirit and intent of the backcourt rule. There are others that feel it is correct, and have not yet seen the error of their way of thinking.
I'm on the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way.

It's an interpretation that's contradicted by the rules. Stoopid monkeys!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 06:01pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
When you say it like that, it sounds almost reasonable!
Not to me.....
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 06:05pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,632
I must've missed this discussion. But...

Personally, I find this ruling nonsensical and wonder which moron thought it up.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 06:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Send a message via AIM to Back In The Saddle Send a message via MSN to Back In The Saddle Send a message via Yahoo to Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
I must've missed this discussion. But...

Personally, I find this ruling nonsensical and wonder which moron thought it up.
Not which (singular), which (plural). It's a committee. You know what a camel is, don't you?
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
When you say it like that, it sounds almost reasonable!
Oh. Is it too late to change my mind?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Not to me.....
Oh wait. Is it too late to change my mind about that changing my mind thing?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:19pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Oh wait. Is it too late to change my mind about that changing my mind thing?
Scared of the Curse of the Rainmaker?

Know what they call people like you?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 17, 2008, 09:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Know what they call people like you?
Yes.

Hercules.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/75903
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
Thoughts on this play... Andy Softball 10 Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:23am
ODD play any thoughts fonzzy07 Basketball 7 Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:43am
What are your thoughts? brandan89 Basketball 9 Sun Feb 18, 2007 02:41pm
Your thoughts please eventnyc Basketball 2 Sun Feb 20, 2005 01:08pm
Need your thoughts cypercat Basketball 7 Mon Feb 14, 2005 04:06pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1