By unilateral decree...

[jdw3018]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I could see it happening where a team at the end of the game who was winning thought the count wouldn't start until they picked up the ball therefore they let it roll to waste some time. But they would probably pick it up before the 10 seconds had passed and get the violation called after dribbling around for 3 seconds.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

To fix this mess....

1) Let's define team control on the throw-in
2) g. Frontcourt/backcourt status is not attained until a player with the ball has established a positive position in either half during (1) a jump ball, (2) a steal by a defensive player,(3) a throw-in (4) any time the ball is loose.
3) Define loose ball as a bat or deflection of a throw-in...

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 , 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.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Grail

I see your argument, but the following question (I'll paraphrase) is on the test every year or two:

T/F Team B causes the ball to be OOB when Thrower A1's pass is batted back into A1 before A1 has had a chance to re-enter the court.

We know this is false, as the violation is on A1 and the ball is given to B. So what makes the OP situation any different. B definitely deflected the ball, but it still had front court status. It didn't have back court status until A2 touched it. Who caused the ball to have back court status? A2.

Whether you want to call it or not is your business, but I agree with the interp.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Grail

I see your argument, but the following question (I'll paraphrase) is on the test every year or two:

T/F Team B causes the ball to be OOB when Thrower A1's pass is batted back into A1 before A1 has had a chance to re-enter the court.

We know this is false, as the violation is on A1 and the ball is given to B. So what makes the OP situation any different. B definitely deflected the ball, but it still had front court status. It didn't have back court status until A2 touched it. Who caused the ball to have back court status? A2.

Whether you want to call it or not is your business, but I agree with the interp.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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?

[w_sohl]

is inline with the interp in my games.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

"Flux capacitor. . . fluxing."

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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 , 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.)

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...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Great definition? of team control?

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.)

I think NCAA went to a similar definition to clean up so that at team control foul is called on throw-ins as well...

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Adam]

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