By unilateral decree...
 

Ok, I'm officially going on record that I have unilaterally decreed the following NFHS interpretation to be null and void. :D
I refuse to enforce it and I will advocate that all of my colleagues don't follow it.

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

WTF - How could Team A have caused the ball to have backcourt status. They never touched it. Hard sell to the coach.

I agree, Good No Call.

The ball isn't in the backcourt until it touches something. It had frontcourt status when it was in the air over the backcourt.

On a related question, A is passing in the frontcourt and B deflects the ball into the backcourt. When do you start the 10 second count for A to get the ball to the frontcourt?

as soon as the ball has back court status.

So why does when the ball obtains back court status matter for starting the count but not for calling the violation?

The rule says team A must be the last to touch the ball "before" it gained BC status. The word "before" simply cannot mean "simultaneously," which it would have to if the interpretation is correct.

Here's a correct call you'll never have to make:

A1 with ball in FC, passes towards A2, also in FC. B1 tips ball into BC where it makes very slow progress.

10 seconds later; violation on Team A for 10 seconds in the BC.

BTW, I think this is a case of the rules committee self smarting themselves.

Depends on how fast you count. ;)

Just kidding.

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.

Whether I would call this or not would be dictated by what effect it would have on the possibility of the game going into overtime. I think that's a good criteria to use for how to make any call late in a close game. :rolleyes:

And I'll Give You A "Sigh" Too ...
 

"Good Grief".

What interp? I don't recall reading any such interp. Ever. ;)

Yooohooo, NFHS, are you listening? This interp is FLAT OUT WRONG. Utterly and completely wrong. Please fix it. Call it an editorial change if you need to save face, but get this abomination off the books.

Enough of this madness
 

1) NFHS cant figure out that before means before...

2) The whole throw-in exception thing... Rule 9-9-3 on the throw-in is nonsense as well... I understand the exception ends when the throw in... ( Inow it is consistent with the college ruling but...

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...


(Go figure I got this from the NBA) it is a whole H%^ll of a lot easier...

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.

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?

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?

Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

What if it was? The rule used to say "a bat by an opponent" ended the dribble, but had no provision for the dribble to end if the opponent "was touched" by the ball. Now the two are lumped together, ball touches or is touched by, but the phrase "causes the dribbler to lose control" is attached to both. This change took place after a long discussion here about this matter, which was sparked by a "good question" by, uh, okay, it was me.

Well, the only reason I asked was, in your question, realistically it doesn't make a difference because A1 didn't "lose control" and is still dribbling. But, technically speaking, didn't the dribble end and A1 started a new dribble? What if the touch caused just enough of change of direction that A1 had touch it with both hands to re-gain control of the dribble? With only a "slight touch" by B1, would you say A1 violated by touching the ball with both hands while dribbling? What do you consider "losing control"?

Losing control is a gray area. I thought that was the point of the use of the phrase "slight touch," in this case, and that the dribbler did not lose control.

I think that was the purpose of the change - we no longer have to judge the difference between a "slight touch" and "intentional bat".

While that is entirely beside the actual point, that implies that player control is lost if A1 has to make any sort of adjustment in response to B1's touch....it was briefly out of player control.

The real point was you can easily contruct cases that become backcourt violations that simply defy common sense....not to mention the rules.

When you've patted it with a bib.

Sorry - I just got back from visiting my grandson who turned three last week. We had lunch together today.

Okay, when does a dribble end?


So the little fellow cleaned you up. There's a good boy.:D

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.

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.

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