2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.
 

The rules interpretation in question is:

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 interpretation is pretty cut and dry. In fact, I have been a registered basketball official since 1971 and this has been the interpretation as long as I have been an official and even before I became an official. I don't feel like climbing up in the attic but I am pretty sure that this play has been in either the NFHS Casebook or the Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada Casebook in the past.

Just breakdown the play. Team A had control of the ball in its frontcourt; therefore the ball had frontcourt status. B1's deflecting of the ball did not did not change anything; Team A still had control of the ball and the ball still had frontcourt status. A2 then moved from Team A's frontcourt to Team A's backcourt; that means A2 court status is in Team A's backcourt. When A2 touches the ball he causes the ball to go from frontcourt to backcourt and also becomes the first player from Team A to touch the ball after Team A caused the ball to go from frontcourt to backcourt.

This is really a simple play and as I have said earlier in this post, this interpretation has been in effect for both high school and college for well over 45 years. I can't see any other ruling based upon the rules.


Why have I brought this play back to life. I have had some officials tell me that this ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule. I haven't been able to find any previous threads concerning this play. Therefore, I am asking anybody who does not agree with this interpretation to please defend your position.

Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=38742

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=39068

It is nonsense. :p

That is because it doesn't follow the actual text of the 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.


In situation 10 was A2 or a teammate of his in contact with the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status? NO. The first contact occurred simultaneously with the ball changing status from frontcourt to backcourt. That's not BEFORE and the rule requires BEFORE.

If the ruling in situation 10 were held to be correct, then the following play would also have be declared a backcourt violation:

A1 is holding the ball. He is standing on the center restraining circle in his backcourt exactly six feet from the division line. B1 is standing in the same place on the other side of the division line. Therefore the players are exactly twelve feet apart and in opposite halves of the court. A1 throws a pass intended for A2 who is located at the FT line in Team A's frontcourt, but B1 jumps and blocks the pass with one hand. He deflects the ball directly back to A1 who catches it. During the entire play A1 remained in the same spot on the floor and the ball never touched the court.

MTD, have you been calling backcourt violations on that play since 1971? ;)

PS Scrapper cited two previous threads on this for you. I think that you are referred to in post #12 of the first thread. :D

1) You can spend a year in your freaking attic and you'll never find anything to support that statement. There's NEVER been anything cited at ANY time ANYWHERE that will back you up.

2) And the correct call to be made when a defender moves laterally under an airborne opponent after that opponent has left their feet is a simple play too. That didn't stop the (very) odd official from screwing that call completely up also. The same type of official would call a violation on this play.;)

This ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule.

The rule clearly 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. "

The ball was last touched in the frontcourt by B, meaning that it was NOT last touched in the froncourt by A. It was touched in the backcourt by A.

Now, I am challenging MTD to PROVE that this interpretation has been in force for 45 years. You see, just you saying so doesn't mean didley. Put your money where your mouth is.

[QUOTE=Nevadaref]
If the ruling in situation 10 were held to be correct, then the following play would also have be declared a backcourt violation:

A1 is holding the ball. He is standing on the center restraining circle in his backcourt exactly six feet from the division line. B1 is standing in the same place on the other side of the division line. Therefore the players are exactly twelve feet apart and in opposite halves of the court. A1 throws a pass intended for A2 who is located at the FT line in Team A's frontcourt, but B1 jumps and blocks the pass with one hand. He deflects the ball directly back to A1 who catches it. During the entire play A1 remained in the same spot on the floor and the ball never touched the court."

If you break the play down, it has to be called a backcourt violation. Consider:

A1 passes and it is deflected by B1. The ball now has frontcourt status since B1 touched it while in the front court. The deflection never touches the floor and A1 catches it while still standing in the backcourt. Who caused the ball to now have backcourt status? A1.

If A1 lets it bounce in the backcourt before touching it, then B1 would be the cause of the ball acquiring backcourt status, and A can touch it without penalty.

I don't know if I'd ever be quick or alert enough to call it, or if I'd want to explain it to a coach, but it does seem like a backcourt violation.

Nevada, how does your scenario fit the rule? No one from A touched the ball in the front court, ever. Situation 10 (I'll agree that it's a disaster) doesn't affect your scenario.

Someone from A touching the ball in the front court is not a critical part of Situation 10. The only critical parts are:

Team Control A
Ball has front court status
Deflected by B
Caught by A in the back court before the ball has bounced in the back court.

So, Sit 10 definitely applies to Nevada's scenario because the entire point of Sit 10 is to try to argue that the catching of a ball with front court status while standing in back court is tantamount to being both the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it in the back court.

That's a concise analysis of why that particular ruling should never have been issued. It simply does not have rules backing.

It took me writing a response, reviewing it, posting it, re-reviewing it, and editing it; but the lightbulb went off.

Good try, except for the fact that causing the ball to have BC status is NOT a violation. It is completely different than OOB situations.

Consider this player....A1 passes to A2. A2 misses the ball and it goes into the backcourt (A1 last to touch in the FC). Who caused it to go into the backcourt? A1. Is that a violation? No. It only becomes a violation if a player from A is the next to touch the ball. If B retrieves the ball, we keep playing. So, causing the ball to go the BC is not relevant.

Last to touch before it goes to the backcourt and first to touch after it goes to the backcourt are the two major elements to remember....and a single event can't be both before (last to touch) and after (first to touch) a reference point (going to the backcourt).

Unless, of course, we torture logic enough to render it unrecognizable.

JDW:

Go the the head of the class and collect a fine Cuban cigar.

MTD, Sr.

The posters that have trouble with this ruling are missing the point that I thought was so obvious that it is not a violation for a player from Team A, which has control of the ball in its frontcourt, to cause the ball to go from Team A's frontcourt to a Team A's backcourt. The violation is being the first player to touch or be touched by the ball after the ball has regained backcourt status. A2's touching causes two things to happen simulanteously: 1) Causing the ball to return to the backcourt, and 2) being the first player to touch it after the ball returned to the backcourt. It is a pretty simple concept.

MTD, Sr.