Here's a puzzler

[AKOFL]

I'm with Indianaref. Be patient and let it bounce before you grab it. As clear cut as this b/c violation is why do we have so many questions about it.

[BillyMac]

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)

[refguy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

Thank you BillyMac. It's really not that hard although I bet the percentage of officials who call it properly is not very high.
I've actually had this 3 or 4 times.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

Here's the problem: Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation. The rule, as written, specifies "last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt." In the situation described in the interpretation, this simply did not happen.

[mbyron]

Yeah, a lot of us dislike that interp.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Yeah, a lot of us dislike that interp.

"Yeah" instead of "Yes"? "Interp" instead of "Interpretation"? Only eight words in the post, six of which have only one syllable, none of which are more than two syllables? No obscure references that send me to Wikipedia? What have you done with the real mbyron, and how much ransom do you want to keep him?

[tjchamp]

Think of it this way, if A3 were standing out of bounds when he touched it, would you call it out of bounds on B1? I think the interp just clarifies that the midcourt line acts like an OOB line.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

Think of it this way, if A3 were standing out of bounds when he touched it, would you call it out of bounds on B1?

That would be rugby, which is a quite different game.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

Think of it this way, if A3 were standing out of bounds when he touched it, would you call it out of bounds on B1? I think the interp just clarifies that the midcourt line acts like an OOB line.

For only one team. Which is why, to my way of thinking, it does not act like an OOB line.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

Think of it this way, if A3 were standing out of bounds when he touched it, would you call it out of bounds on B1? I think the interp just clarifies that the midcourt line acts like an OOB line.

Think of it this way: Throwing the ball out of bounds is a violation.
Throwing the ball into backcourt is not.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Yeah" instead of "Yes"? "Interp" instead of "Interpretation"? Only eight words in the post, six of which have only one syllable, none of which are more than two syllables? No obscure references that send me to Wikipedia? What have you done with the real mbyron, and how much ransom do you want to keep him?

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Here's the problem: Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation. .

Say what???

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Here's the problem: Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Say what???

I said: Causing the ball to have backcourt status, in and of itself, is not a violation. A1 throws the ball into the backcourt. The ball now has backcourt status, but this is not a violation until touched by another A player. In the op, when A3 touched the ball, he caused it to have backcourt status. By rule, this is not a violation since it was not touched last in the frontcourt by team A. The rule specifies that "last to touch, first to touch" is a violation. The interpretation in question directly contradicts the rule. Each of us must decide for himself which carries more weight, the rule or the interp. I have decided.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

I'm with Indianaref. Be patient and let it bounce before you grab it. As clear cut as this b/c violation is why do we have so many questions about it.

Because, as the rule is written, it is NOT a backcourt violation and never was....until SIT. 10 from 07-08 came out with a play that fundamentally disagrees with the rule.

The rule says a player/team can't be, relative to the point at which the ball gains BC status, the first to touch AFTER it gained BC status if the player/team was also the last to touch BEFORE it gained BC status.

"After" and "Before" are effectively the same as "greater than" and "less than". There is absolutely no way for one thing to be both greater than and less than a single point (gaining BC status).

The rule was pretty plain and simple until someone tried to redefine it with Sit. 10 without also changing the rule to match.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"After" and "Before" are effectively the same as "greater than" and "less than". There is absolutely no way for one thing to be both greater than and less than a single point (gaining BC status).

Great comparison. This helps explain the "odd" interpretation of this situation. Thanks.