By unilateral decree...

[Nevadaref]

Ok, I'm officially going on record that I have unilaterally decreed the following NFHS interpretation to be null and void.
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)

[3SPORT]

RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status.

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

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

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?

[Rock Chalk]

as soon as the ball has back court status.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

[Adam]

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.

[Adam]

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

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Depends on how fast you count.

Just kidding.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

"Good Grief".

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Ok, I'm officially going on record that I have unilaterally decreed the following NFHS interpretation to be null and void.
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)

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.

[Kelvin green]

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...

[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.