I Think I Kicked It

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Difference between the current rule and an NFHS interp.

See this thread: By unilateral decree...

[BktBallRef]

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.

According to last year's NFHS Interpretations, this is a violation.

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)

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

According to last year's NFHS Interpretations, this is a violation.

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)

...and I didn't read past the first couple of posts, but the ruling makes sense based on the "three-points" (two feet and the ball) concept.

[shishstripes]

three points only applies to the dribbler. If ball has FC status, your team is in control and you are first to touch in BC without the ball gaining BC status first, its a violation. In the OP, Team A is in control, ball has FC status (last touches floor in FC), and A2 first to touch in BC.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

three points only applies to the dribbler. If ball has FC status, your team is in control and you are first to touch in BC without the ball gaining BC status first, its a violation. In the OP, Team A is in control, ball has FC status (last touches floor in FC), and A2 first to touch in BC.

And that's the rub: the traditional interp of the rule requires that A be last to touch the ball in the FC. The new interp does not require that.

[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.

[Adam]

It is impossible for a single act to occur at two separate points in time.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It is impossible for a single act to occur at two separate points in time.

And in other news, Stephen Hawking will be stepping down from his post as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge in 2009.