Here's a puzzler

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, the rule doesn't need to change at all, this interp just needs to go away. In fact, I believe they also agree if the ball bounced first in the backcourt before A2 caught it, it would not be a violation, because then B1 would be the last to touch in the frontcourt, and A2 would be the first to touch in the backcourt. And we all agree that would be correct. That's why we've been arguing with their logic (or apparent lack of...), because they are saying since the ball was still in the air, it still had frontcourt status, and A2's touching was both "last to touch" in the frontcourt" and "first to touch" in the backcourt at the same instant.

"Last to touch, first to touch" is an easy concept to understand and follow, so I don't think it needs to be re-written at all. Just change the interp to say A2's catching in the air now gives the ball backcourt status, so B1's touch was the last touch in the frontcourt.

But "last to touch, first to touch" is not how the rule is currently written. The word "CAUSED", as written in this rule, conflicts with the "last to touch, first to touch" concept.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

But "last to touch, first to touch" is not how the rule is currently written. The word "CAUSED", as written in this rule, conflicts with the "last to touch, first to touch" concept.

I guess I'm not following - how does the word "cause" conflict?

How does a player "cause" the ball to go OOB?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I guess I'm not following - how does the word "cause" conflict?

How does a player "cause" the ball to go OOB?

By meeting the criteria in the "cause the ball to go oob" rule (somewhere in 7, I think). One of the ways is by touching the ball while bing OOB.

There's no similar definition of "cause the ball to go to the BC"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I guess I'm not following - how does the word "cause" conflict?

How does a player "cause" the ball to go OOB?

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.

[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....