Here's a puzzler

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

B1 deflects the ball, if the ball lands OOB then B1 has "caused" the ball to be OOB. If A1, who is standing OOB, catches the ball then A1 caused the ball to be OOB.

Team A has team control and is throwing the ball back-and-forth when B1 deflects it. If the ball lands in the BC then B1 has "caused" the ball to have BC status. If A1 catches the ball on the fly while standing in the BC then A1 "caused" the ball to have BC status.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying.

The problem is you've quoted the NCAA rule, and Nevada quoted the Fed. rule. The Fed. interp would make sense if the rule was written the same in both codes. But they're not. The only time the word "cause" is used in the Fed. rule is 9-9-2, "While in team control in the backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from the backcourt to the frontcourt and return to the backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, and be the first to touch in the backcourt." 9-9-1 is still pretty clear on the "last to touch, first to touch" concept. As Bob also mentioned, there is no definition of "causing the ball to be in the backcourt" in Fed. rules, like there is in 7-2 and 7-3 about "Causing the ball to be out of bounds".

[Nevadaref]

The famous 4-point test for a BC violation as posted by BktBallRef is a summary of 9-9-1. It does NOT take into account certain situations which qualify as violations under 9-9-2. In other words, it is only a shortcut, not a substitute for the actual text of the rule. BTW the actual text of 9-9-2 was modified last season due to a post that I made on this forum. It is likely that only a select few noticed.

As for the infamous interp, if one goes by the text of the rule, the interp is just plain wrong.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW the actual text of 9-9-2 was modified last season due to a post that I made on this forum.

Could have been an unfortunate coincidence...

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Could have been an unfortunate coincidence...

I made the comment on this forum 2 years ago that they should move NFHS FT rebounders up a space similar to NCAA....and BAM! it was changed.

Coincidence? I think not....

[M&M Guy]

Ok, I've been thinking about this; although the interp seems to clearly go against the rule, surely the committee must have had some basis for coming up with that interp. Thanks to BadNewsRef, I think I might've come with an insight.

Let's take a simple OOB violation - we all know it is a violation on the player who touched the ball last before the ball goes OOB. Now, let's take a throw-in scenario: A1 has the ball for a throw-in, B1 is defending inbounds. A1 passes the ball, B1 blocks the pass (inbounds), and the ball comes back and hits A1 while still OOB. According to player location and ball location rules, B1 was the last to touch inbounds, and the ball gained OOB status when it hit A1 again OOB, so why isn't the violation on B1 for causing the ball to go OOB? 7-2-1 "Causing the ball to go out of bounds - individual player", along with the definition of player location (4-35) would say it's a violation on B1, and A would get another throw-in.

Except for the words in 7-2-1, "...unless the ball touches a player who is OOB prior to touching something OOB other than a player." So this little phrase, in effect, says A1 was the last to touch while the ball had inbounds status, and also caused the ball to become OOB, effectively at the same time, which is what the committee is doing with the backcourt interp. Also, this applies if the ball hits A1 again on the fly; if the ball bounces OOB before hitting A1, then the violation is on B1 - same scenario as the interp.

Now, there should probably be some addtional "unless" wording in the rule, or perhaps a clearer meaning of the phrase "cause the ball to go to the backcourt", so the interp becomes clearer. But as the rules are currently written, I still disagree with the interp, although now I kind of understand where they came up with it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, I've been thinking about this; although the interp seems to clearly go against the rule, surely the committee must have had some basis for coming up with that interp. Thanks to BadNewsRef, I think I might've come with an insight.

Let's take a simple OOB violation - we all know it is a violation on the player who touched the ball last before the ball goes OOB. Now, let's take a throw-in scenario: A1 has the ball for a throw-in, B1 is defending inbounds. A1 passes the ball, B1 blocks the pass (inbounds), and the ball comes back and hits A1 while still OOB. According to player location and ball location rules, B1 was the last to touch inbounds, and the ball gained OOB status when it hit A1 again OOB, so why isn't the violation on B1 for causing the ball to go OOB? 7-2-1 "Causing the ball to go out of bounds - individual player", along with the definition of player location (4-35) would say it's a violation on B1, and A would get another throw-in.

Fine, except that causing the ball to have BC status is not a violation at all while causing it to be OOB always is.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Except for the words in 7-2-1, "...unless the ball touches a player who is OOB prior to touching something OOB other than a player."

Wording which doesn't exist in any form in connection with the BC rule.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So this little phrase, in effect, says A1 was the last to touch while the ball had inbounds status, and also caused the ball to become OOB, effectively at the same time,

It doesn't say that in any way, shape, or form. That is where the error in this line of thinking lies. The rule very simply says that it is OOB for an OOB player to touch the ball. It says absolutely nothing about who last touched it inbounds. The the other part of the rule covers the case where the ball touches OOB (but not by touching an OOB player).

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

which is what the committee is doing with the backcourt interp. Also, this applies if the ball hits A1 again on the fly; if the ball bounces OOB before hitting A1, then the violation is on B1 - same scenario as the interp.

Now, there should probably be some addtional "unless" wording in the rule, or perhaps a clearer meaning of the phrase "cause the ball to go to the backcourt", so the interp becomes clearer. But as the rules are currently written, I still disagree with the interp, although now I kind of understand where they came up with it.

[M&M Guy]

Cameron - for the most part, I agree with your disagreements. (Huh?...) I still feel the interp is wrong, but I was just trying to point out their possible line of thinking.

Of course, I could be way off-base, and their line of thinking was actually developed on a Friday afternoon over a pitcher or two of margaritas.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Of course, I could be way off-base, and their line of thinking was actually developed on a Friday afternoon over a pitcher or two of margaritas.

Margaritas? What wimps! It should be a pitcher or two of a good ol' Jack and Coke mix. That'll get the discussion going, and grow some hair and cajones!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Of course, I could be way off-base, and their line of thinking was actually developed on a Friday afternoon over a pitcher or two of margaritas.

Did I miss Cinco de Mayo?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree with your disagreements. (Huh?...)

Or do you really disagree with his agreements? Or disagree with his disagreements? Or agree with his agreements? Huh?