By unilateral decree...

[w_sohl]

is inline with the interp in my games.

[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.)

[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.

[jdw3018]

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

[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?

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Wow, I just reread the OP and I think that I would have let that one go as if it had touched in the back court.

I guess the thinking by the Fed is that the ball while in the air still has FC status and A2 by possesing the ball is simultaneously the last to touch when it has FC status and the first to touch in the BC. Interesting. Wonder what I'll do if this happens in a game. Hope I do the right thing and call BC.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Snaqs:

The Rules Committees' position has been that the before and after event occur simultaneously. That is what simultaneously means.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs:

The Rules Committees' position has been that the before and after event occur simultaneously. That is what simultaneously means.

MTD, Sr.

Hence the absurdity of the ruling. There are just way to many non-sense plays that are created as a result of Situation 10 for it to have any chance of being correct.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Hence the absurdity of the ruling. There are just way to many non-sense plays that are created as a result of Situation 10 for it to have any chance of being correct.

Camron:

Read my initial post in this thread (#29). This is an interpretation that has been around for over 45 years. I really don't see how way too many nonsense plays can be created as the result of this interpretation. It is a logical interpretation and quite a simple and elegant interpretation.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I had my first game of the season tonight, a men's college jr. varsity game. A run and gun game. It is 01:27amEST, and it is way past this old man's bedtime. Good night all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.

There's more to it than that.

No one disagrees that the status of the ball changes from FC to BC at the moment that A2 touches it. The disagreement with the interpretation is that A2 is already IN THE BACKCOURT before he touches the ball, therefore, he clearly cannot be the last player IN THE FRONTCOURT to touch the ball "BEFORE it went to the backcourt" as the text of the rule requires for there to be a violation.

It is blatantly obvious to me that the words "in the frontcourt" in 9-9-1 modify "he/she or a teammate" and not "the ball." Therefore, the requirements of the rule hinge upon the FC/BC status of the player who is last in contact with the ball, not that of the ball itself.

The reason that this must be the case is because if the contrary were true, then by your reasoning and that given in NFHS Interp #10 the following play would be a backcourt violation:

A1 is holding the ball in his backcourt. He throws a pass towards A2, who is standing in the frontcourt. B3, who is also in Team A's frontcourt, blocks (deflects) the pass. The ball rebounds, in flight without ever contacting the floor, directly back to A1 who catches it having never moved from his original position in Team A's backcourt.

Deeming that play to be a backcourt violation on Team A is absurd!

9.9.1 Situation C basically says that this play is legal, but is not crystal clear because one can definitely make the case that the words "deflects it back to A's backcourt" indicate that the ball first contacts the floor in the backcourt before being recovered by a member of Team A.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

he clearly cannot be the last player IN THE FRONTCOURT to touch the ball "BEFORE it went to the backcourt" as the text of the rule requires for there to be a violation.

It is blatantly obvious to me that the words "in the frontcourt" in 9-9-1 modify "he/she or a teammate" and not "the ball." Therefore, the requirements of the rule hinge upon the FC/BC status of the player who is last in contact with the ball, not that of the ball itself.

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

A1 stands in the backcourt, no dribble yet, places the ball in the froncourt, wipes her hands off on her socks, then picks the ball up.

If it's a dribble, not a BC violation.
If it's not a dribble?

Sorry couldn't resist.....