I Think I Kicked It

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Spence

A1 has possession in the front court. Tries to pass over the defender. B1 bats the ball back towards midcourt. A1 goes to retrieve and crosses the division line. However, the ball last bounced in the FC and never bounced in the BC. A1 caught it while standing in the BC before it bounced in the BC.

I let it go and immediately questioned my call.

I'm pretty sure I should have had a violation. I seem to remember a post about an interp about this type of case.

Spence,
While the interpretation (that Nevadaref truly loves ) indicates that you kicked it, I would be willing to bet that NO ONE in the GYM thought you missed it.

Just another situation in which NOT following a rule or interp provides better game management. Had you called the violation, you and your partner(s) would have spent 45 seconds explaining it to the coach and he (and all of the rest of the people in the gym) would have still thought you were wrong.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Spence,
While the interpretation (that Nevadaref truly loves ) indicates that you kicked it, I would be willing to bet that NO ONE in the GYM thought you missed it.

Just another situation in which NOT following a rule or interp provides better game management. Had you called the violation, you and your partner(s) would have spent 45 seconds explaining it to the coach and he (and all of the rest of the people in the gym) would have still thought you were wrong.

So you wouldn't call it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

So you wouldn't call it?

I wouldn't.

I had it, and passed on it.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I wouldn't.

I had it, and passed on it.

I assume the "before it went to the backcourt" portion of the rule is the sticking point?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

I assume the "before it went to the backcourt" portion of the rule is the sticking point?

Yes.

[Berkut]

Not to dive back into the question, but isn't the interp consistent with an A player standing out of bounds who is hit by a ball deflected out of bounds by B, but not touching OOB until it strikes A?

Even though B sent it out of bounds, it is still off of A. But if touches OOB BEFORE it hits A, then it is off of B.

Why isn't this the same thing?

The interp, to me, seems consistent, even if it is not really intuitive. The ball had FC status until it was touched by A, which made it have BC status, and hence we have a over and back, since A had team control the entire time.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Not to dive back into the question, but isn't the interp consistent with an A player standing out of bounds who is hit by a ball deflected out of bounds by B, but not touching OOB until it strikes A?

Even though B sent it out of bounds, it is still off of A. But if touches OOB BEFORE it hits A, then it is off of B.

Why isn't this the same thing?

The interp, to me, seems consistent, even if it is not really intuitive. The ball had FC status until it was touched by A, which made it have BC status, and hence we have a over and back, since A had team control the entire time.

Oh my, please don't get them started...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Not to dive back into the question, but isn't the interp consistent with an A player standing out of bounds who is hit by a ball deflected out of bounds by B, but not touching OOB until it strikes A?

Even though B sent it out of bounds, it is still off of A. But if touches OOB BEFORE it hits A, then it is off of B.

Why isn't this the same thing?

The interp, to me, seems consistent, even if it is not really intuitive. The ball had FC status until it was touched by A, which made it have BC status, and hence we have a over and back, since A had team control the entire time.

If the OOB rule said that a player shall not be the first to touch the ball while contacting the OOB area AFTER HE/SHE OR A TEAMMATE WAS THE LAST TO TOUCH THE BALL WHILE IN THE INBOUNDS AREA, then your analogy between the backcourt rule and the OOB rule would be correct. However, OOB doesn't work that way. There are no prior requirements as there are for a backcourt violation. Our problem with the recent NFHS interp is that it ignores one of the prior requirements (last to touch the ball WHILE IN THE FRONTCOURT).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Not to dive back into the question, but isn't the interp consistent with an A player standing out of bounds who is hit by a ball deflected out of bounds by B, but not touching OOB until it strikes A?

Even though B sent it out of bounds, it is still off of A. But if touches OOB BEFORE it hits A, then it is off of B.

Why isn't this the same thing?

The interp, to me, seems consistent, even if it is not really intuitive. The ball had FC status until it was touched by A, which made it have BC status, and hence we have a over and back, since A had team control the entire time.

To NEvada's comment, let me add that the OOB violation is for "causing the ball to go OOB" and there's a specific statement to the effect that "if a player standing OOB touches the ball, that player causes the ball to go OOB."

There's no similar statement / comment on "causing the ball to go BC"