By unilateral decree...

[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.....

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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.

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

[Scrapper1]

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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".

There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Please don't confuse yourself by lumping them together. Doing that will yield incorrect results.

My play is governed by 9-9-1, since the ball was touched by a player from either team in the frontcourt of Team A, and is not a violation according to any sensible reading of the rule.

Your play falls under the purview of 9-9-2 and is a violation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Right, which is why I was concerned about the reasoning that was being discussed. It seems to make the play legal, even when it's clearly stated by rule not to be legal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Right, which is why I was concerned about the reasoning that was being discussed. It seems to make the play legal, even when it's clearly stated by rule not to be legal.

I was very clearly discussing only 9-9-1 as evidenced by the fact that I quoted from that article. Any "reasoning" which was put forth was in the context of only that rule.

One cannot logically take anything that was written in that context and apply it to a completely different article in the rules book. That would also yield bizarre results.

The four-points system that has been enumerated on this forum is an excellent tool for helping an official determine if a backcourt violation has been committed, but it is not a complete substitute for the actual text of the rules.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I was very clearly discussing only 9-9-1 as evidenced by the fact that I quoted from that article. Any "reasoning" which was put forth was in the context of only that rule.

Fair enough. It's not the first time I wrote a little too quickly