Hmmmm.....
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....:):):)

Oooooo, you're in rare form, Coach. :D That's a good one, I have to admit.

Even without the disputed interp, my play above should be a violation:

1) Team control -- yes
2) Frontcourt status -- yes
3) Team A last to touch ball before it went to backcourt -- yes (even though A1 was standing in his backcourt when he made that touch)
4) Team A was first to touch ball after it went to backcourt -- yes.

No FC status. A1 standing in the BC and bouncing the ball in the FC is the start of a dribble.

If it is a dribble, then no to #2. However, if it returns to A2, it is a pass and would be a backcourt violation.

I've seen no evidence that this position existed before last year.

There are many crazy situations IF this interpratation were true....

#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

#2. A1 near the division line in the BC attempts a pass to A2, also near the division line in the BC. B1 jumps from the FC in an attempt to intercept the pass. B1 slightly deflects the pass but the pass continues on, in flight, to A2. By your interpratation, this would be a BC violation against A.

These two results are just nonsense.

This interpretation is in direct contradiction with the rules. THere is NO way to read the rules and come to this conclusion. It may be that some people believe that this was the case...and perhaps for a long time....but there is no rules basis for that conclusion.

A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

What if that slight touch was intentional?