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.

It is a simple concept. Unfortunately, it's <i>deja vu</i> all over again when it comes to you failing to understand simple concepts.

Yep, seems pretty simple to me too.

Simultaneously is not the same as BEFORE.

Just wished to make sure that no one attributed words to me that weren't mine simply because FrankHtown messed up the quote feature. ;)

So A1 is in the front court, throws a pass, it's tipped by B1, and A2 catches the pass in the air while standing in the back court. This is now a backcourt violation?

While it doesn't meet the requirements of either 9-9-1 or 9-9-2, it is a violation according the logic set forth in last year's interp (sit 10).

Rather absurd, huh?

Where have you been for a whole year? :p

Good thing. I would have had a heck of a time explaining that ruling to a coach.

Might I suggest that you let MTD explain it to the coach for you? :D

Talk about prolonging a game....

Well, here's unrelated play but it caused a lot of debate in camp among the observers, including the conference supervisor:

Made basket, A1 retrieves ball OOB and throws the ball OOB along the end line to A2. But...A2 is standing with one foot inbound and one foot OOB. What is A2's status?

He's now playing defense as B is throwing the ball in.

Once A1 stepped out of bounds, he has to either throw it in or throw it to a teammate out of bounds. A2 is neither in bounds nor out of bounds, so it's a violation.

His status is he has committed a violation.

I'd like to believe the player is OOB but a violation must be called as he is simultaneously standing IB before passing the ball directly onto the court.

Correct you are on this statement. However (in the Sit 10 from the NFHS), who was the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt? B. There fore, there is no violation.

The official on the court did not call a violation. He explanation was as follows:

• A2 status was OOB. A2 then lifted his inbound foot and stepped completely OOB therefore maintaining his OOB status before passing the ball directly on to the court.

Most of us agreed that it was a violation but we were having a hard time articulating why to the calling official vis-a-vis a rule's citation.

Maybe I can piece it together at home with the rules cites, but here's my logic:

1. There are specific things A1 is allowed to do without violation. Once he releases the ball, it must do one of two things: go directly onto the court or go to a teammate standing out of bounds along the same endline.

2. The teammate was not standing completely out of bounds when he caught the ball, therefore it's a throwin violation.

a. A2 has OOB status. He is touching OOB with one foot that is all that is required. His status cannot be disputed and is not the issue here.

b. Once A2 catches the ball he must now follow the restrictions of the throw-in provisions. That includes 9-2-5: "... the thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." By holding the ball and touching inbounds he violated that provision and thus committed a throw-in violation. Case Book play 9.2.5 confirms that touching the court inbounds is a violation.

The above confusion backs up what I have always thought, which is that this rule, like others could be better worded. One foot in and one foot out equals out of bounds status for the player, which can result in confusion. Suggestion:
The thrower shall not touch the inbounds area with the ball or any part of his person.

True, but isn't that what the Case Book does? It seems that the Case Book makes this point quite clearly.

The Case Book does a lot, both to give practical examples of rules as written, and to expand the scope of rules to areas not mentioned at all in the rule book.
But this is an example, in my opinion, of language which does a poor job of delivering the intended message. When a thrower accidentally touches a toe inbounds, this would not for most people amount to "carrying the ball onto the court."

Shall we have a poll? :D

I'll give you a pole. :D

Waltz in D flat major, opus 64, No. 1, "Minute Waltz"
 

How about a famous Pole?

http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/m4/2843718530

Frédéric Chopin

While I appreciate a good cigar, I also must add that I disagree with the interpretation.

Understanding the logic doesn't mean I agree with the logic. :D

I find this statement odd based on your many previous comments. When I made the very same claim on a current POE, you said the rulebook includes the POE.

Why is this case any different? Please do not answer this, just a rhetorical inquiry.

Peace

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
It is nonsense. :p

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

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Huh? I don't recall anything of the sort. Do you have me mixed up with JR?

Please provide a quote/link.

I can list
 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers are telling us that particular call has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage, rough play or RBSQ. If we see 2 hands on a ballhandler, we are simply supposed to call a foul.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by truerookie
Yes, I read the comments. I was making a statement not directly at anyone. So, I just find it hard to believe incidental contact even came into this discussion.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Now these are your comments unedited (except for the red, underlining and bold print of course).

Peace

While I agree with your end result, I disagree with how you got there. A1 didn't "carry the ball unto the court" because they passed it. It could be argued A2 didn't "carry" the ball unto the court because they were standing in one spot (with OOB status) when they received the pass.

However, wouldn't 7-5-7(a) cover this?: "Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in, or he/she may pass the ball along the endline to a teammate <B>outside the boundary</B>.

Granted, a small, technical point. But who else would appreciate small, technical points the most? :p

Actually this is not a throw-in violation at all but rather an out of bounds violation.

9-3-2: No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass.

It's an endline throw-in; could be either one.

The throw-in ends when A2 touches the ball. 4-42-5

Remember this is on a made basket.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Made basket, A1 retrieves ball OOB and throws the ball OOB along the end line to A2. But...A2 is standing with one foot inbound and one foot OOB. What is A2's status?

Sometimes the discussions on here amaze me.

In order for A1 to pass the ball to A2 in this situation, it is not enough for him to be OOB. "Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundaryline." (7-5-7) If he's standing with one foot touching inbounds, he's not outside the boundary line.

If he isn't, then the pass is a throw-in.

A2 commits an OOB violation because he is OOB with the ball when the throw-in ends.

What he said.

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate the verbiage. Don't have my book handy.

My understanding is that this rule specifically states "a throwin ends when a throw-in pass...." If A1's intent is to throw to an OOB A2, the throwin hasn't ended. Of course, a throwin also ends when a violation is committed, so the throwin violation by A2 ends the throwin.

My purpose for posting the scenario is not whether or not it is a violation, but WHY it is a violation per a rules citation. At the time no one had a rule book handy and we (those who thought it was a violation) were having trouble articulating why it was a violation to the official in question.

Doesn't matter what his intent was, if A2 is not completely out of bounds, then
7-5-7 a does not apply.

Any player of the team may .........pass the ball along the end line to a teammate outside the boundary.

BNR, as I edited above.

In order for A1 to pass the ball to A2 in this situation, it is not enough for him to be OOB. "Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundaryline." (7-5-7) If he's standing with one foot touching inbounds, he's not outside the boundary line.

BktBallRef's post (and yours here) sums up. This is the exact rule I was thinking of; the question is whether it's a violation on the thrower or the receiver. The difference is where the ensuing spot throwin will be.

Yes guys, thanks for the clarification, the player definitely can't be outside the boundary with one foot inbounds.

BktBallRef Sometimes the discussions on here amaze me.

Hey everybody isn't as experienced/knowledgable as you are, but I'm striving to get better though.
This question is NOT intended to but may or may not "amaze" you. I just want to know.

Do we have a violation on the receiver for catching the throw-in pass while standing OOB
or a throw-in violation for not passing the ball directly onto the court?

This is a violation on the player catching the pass. The thrower-in's responsibility is to throw the ball so that it touches someone inbounds or out of bounds before going directly out of bounds. He did that, because the ball touched another player, A2.

A2, however, violates when he touches the live ball while contacting the floor out of bounds.

The rules are in 9-2 for this one. I think it's 9-2-2, but I'm not sure.

Thank you

Works for me, too.

Me too.

Don't be such a girl. :o

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the question or even asking such a question. The discussion amazed me because all one had to do was post the rule, which clearly says the teammate must not just be OOB but beyoind the boundary line. All it would have taken was for someone to open the rule book, whcih wasn't happening.

<font size=1>(ahem...post #42)</font size>

Ok, where's my damn cookie?!?

I'll work on it :rolleyes:

No cookies....Have some M&Ms instead.

Good! :cool: