I'm in. Now a multi-lateral decree. :D

They would have to, since the other team wouldn't take 10 seconds to get to it if they're losing a close one late.

Terrible, horrible, awful, just plain bad idea. And NOT because it comes from the NBA. Why do we continually want to change one of our most basic definitions? The only way to establish team control is for a player of that team to hold or dribble a live ball inbounds. That is a GREAT definition, and doesn't need changing. We don't need to incorporate a "loose ball" and end team control on a defensive touch. There's just no reason to do that, except to be the same as the NBA.

It doesn't make anything easier, just different. Let's not mess with our most basic definitions. NCAA did it and made a mess of it, IMHO.

(Let me add, that despite my soft-spoken opposition :o , I usually agree with Kelvin. I don't mean to rag on him personally; I just have seen this suggestion too often recently and I hate it.)

Causing the ball to have BC status is not relevant. If it were, it would be a violation as soon as the ball, having been last touched by team A, touches the backcourt.

Because the backcourt violation rule does not mention "causing" the ball to go BC. The OOB violation rule does mention "causing" the ball to go OOB. That's the major difference.

The BC violation rule specifically requires actions by Team A "before" and "after" a specific event. The interp situation does not meet those requirements, as it is impossible for an event to happen simultaneously with something that occurs before or after it.

Dr. Emmett Brown couldn't even change that basic concept with the flux capacitor.

That's what I was going to say. I'll also add that it'[s a specific rule added to the book to define "causes the ball to be OOB" this way. If FED wants backcourt to be the same, then they should change the rule, and not just issue an interp.

NFHS 7-2-2 "If the ball is out of bounds because of touching or being touched by a player who is on or outside a boundary line, such player causes it to go out."

NFHS 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."

Somebody, anybody, who wants to argue that OOB rule logic applies to backcourt violations, here's your chance. Please show me, based on the actual wording of the rules, how these two rules are the same and should be looked at in the same way.

Do I hear crickets?

Didn't the backcourt rule used to talk about causing the ball to go to backcourt? Like 20 years ago or so? But, iirc, even then "cause" was interpreted, or eventually came to be interpreted, as last to touch?

Anybody remember that far back?

My enforcement...
 

is inline with the interp in my games.

No Longer Necessary, We Have Wormholes For That Now ...
 

The thought of going "Back To the Future" on The Forum gives me a headache. I guess that it could be worse. "Groundhog Day" on the Forum would make my head explode.

"Flux capacitor. . . fluxing."
http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/bac...citor-real.jpg

Great definition? of team control? Let' see... I think NCAA went to a similar definition to clean up so that at team control foul is called on throw-ins as well... The NCAA did not go far enough to end all the nonsense on the back court throw...

My point from above, in the name of consistency (eliminating exceptions) and history, the NFHS has turnes simple plays that should not be violations into a complicated ruling that will be gotten wrong more times that right...

Yes, it's a great definition. It's incredibly simple. There's only two ways to get team control. By having a player on your team (1) hold or (2) dribble a live ball inbounds. That's it. That's the list. Team control continues until (1) the other team holds or dribbles the ball, (2) a try is released, or (3) the ball is dead.

That's it. If you screw that up, you're just not trying very hard. (And I don't mean you personally, Kelvin. I know that you can keep it straight. I mean it more as a general statement.)

They did, and it's a terrible change. It was a mess. They had to revamp all kinds of exceptions for the backcourt and 3-second violations to do it. It's silly.

I understand why some people like the team control foul during the throw-in. I am not even opposed to it. But we can do it without altering the basic definition of team control. As I said, it doesn't make the game better, it just makes it similar to the NBA.

2007-08 Rules Intepretation Situation 10 is not a new interpretation. This interpretation has been the "law of the land" in both NFHS Boys'/Girls' and NCAA Men's/Women's (women's since their rules committee joined the party in the mid-1980's) since before the 1971-72 season (the year I started officiating basketball and before; and was in effect when I played basketball in JrHS (1962-64) and in HS (1965-69). The basic rule has been the same since at least the 1963-64 season because I have a copy of the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada rules book from that year.

The Rules Committee's position was and has always been is that when A2 touches the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt A2 has caused the ball's status to go from frontcourt (A2 is the last player to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status) to backcourt, and is then the first player by Team A to touch the ball after causing the ball to go from frontcourt to backcourt.

The logic is pretty straight forward.

MTD, Sr.

So you can explain how it's physically possible to simultaneously do something before and after the same event?