Here's a puzzler

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And who caused the ball to have BC status, B1 who hit the ball or A1 who caught the ball?

But by rule, B1 was the last to touch in the FC.
I, as others, think the interp contradicts the written rule.
But, that's JMO. It hasn't happened in any of my games yet.

If it does....I'll whip out my rule book.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

It's called sarcasm.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CoachP

But by rule, B1 was the last to touch in the FC.
I, as others, think the interp contradicts the written rule.
But, that's JMO. It hasn't happened in any of my games yet.

If it does....I'll whip out my rule book.

Just don't whip out the interp.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And who caused the ball to have BC status, B1 who hit the ball or A1 who caught the ball?

If the ball hasn't yet touched the floor in the BC, then A1 is the player who causes the ball to attain BC status by catching it, however, as has been stated numerous times on here before, causing the ball to attain BC status is NOT a violation. The violation is for a team being the LAST to touch the ball BEFORE it gains BC status and the FIRST to touch it AFTER it has done so.

[AKOFL]

I'm sure the horse is dead. Can we stop beating the poor thing?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the ball hasn't yet touched the floor in the BC, then A1 is the player who causes the ball to attain BC status by catching it, however, as has been stated numerous times on here before, causing the ball to attain BC status is NOT a violation. The violation is for a team being the LAST to touch the ball BEFORE it gains BC status and the FIRST to touch it AFTER it has done so.

Originally Posted by numerous esteemed members of this forum

3) the team in team control must be the last team to touch the ball in the frontcourt and...
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

Not to be a smart-a$$ , but what is the rules citation for this particular premise?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not to be a smart-a$$ , but what is the rules citation for this particular premise?

9-9-1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team
control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by
the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9-9-1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team
control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by
the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

This is not the same meaning as

4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt.

I don't have a FED book with me but the NCAA rule reads: Rule 9 Section 12. Ball in Back Court Art. 1. "A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court."

To me, B1 deflecting or hitting the ball in the air across the division line does not cause the ball to have backcourt status. Just like deflecting or hitting the ball over the boundary line does not cause the ball to have OOB status.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This is not the same meaning as

I don't have a FED book with me but the NCAA rule reads: Rule 9 Section 12. Ball in Back Court Art. 1. "A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court."

To me, B1 deflecting or hitting the ball in the air across the division line does not cause the ball to have backcourt status. Just like deflecting or hitting the ball over the boundary line does not cause the ball to have OOB status.

We all pretty much agree.

The interp that came out essentially says that A2 catching it in the air is the player last touching the ball in the front court (just as you said above - the ball has yet to obtain backcourt status), and, at the same time, is the first player to touch it in the backcourt (due to the player's location).

You're arguing with the wrong people, in the fact we all agree we do not follow this logic. Unfortunately we have to follow the interp, at least until they come to their senses and change it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We all pretty much agree.

The interp that came out essentially says that A2 catching it in the air is the player last touching the ball in the front court (just as you said above - the ball has yet to obtain backcourt status), and, at the same time, is the first player to touch it in the backcourt (due to the player's location).

You're arguing with the wrong people, in the fact we all agree we do not follow this logic. Unfortunately we have to follow the interp, at least until they come to their senses and change it.

That why I posted earlier (not sure if it was this thread or another) that the rule itself needs some added verbiage. Maybe an exception needs to be added to the rule for this particular scenario, just like they wrote an exception for jumping in the air to/from bc/fc on throw-ins.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That why I posted earlier (not sure if it was this thread or another) that the rule itself needs some added verbiage. Maybe an exception needs to be added to the rule for this particular scenario, just like they wrote an exception for jumping in the air to/from bc/fc on throw-ins.

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.

[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.