Here's a puzzler
 

In another thread, tjchamp brought up a point about the backcourt violation rule. As we all know (at least most of us, anyhow), there are four criteria needed for a backcourt violation.

1) there must be team control
2) the ball must have achieved frontcourt status
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

His situation was (I'm extrapolating) what if A1 had the ball in the front court, his pass to A2 is tipped by B1 who is standing in A's frontcourt, the ball then travels in the air toward A's backcourt where it is next touched by A3 who is standing in A's backcourt. His point was that when A3 touched the ball it established backcourt status for the ball but it still had frontcourt status when he touched it, therefore team A (because of A3's action) was last to touch in the frontcourt and also first to touch in the backcourt and, of course, the tip by B1 didn't end team A's team control because a tip doesn't establish player control which is what would be needed to change team control in this instance.

Can A3's touch accomplish both points at the same time? What do you think?

I may be in need of meds b/c I was actually thinking about this play this weekend.

I can actually understand the logic in the argument that this should be considered a b/c violation because it is A3's action which causes the ball to have b/c status, not B1's action. If A3 had reached across the division line plane from the frontcourt and caught the ball in the air with his hands in the b/c we wouldn't start a 10-second count because the ball never changed to b/c status.

I think that's what the NFHS interp tells us, so I think that is what happens.

I also think their thinking is a bit off. I think the NFHS should explain their way of thinking so the rest of us don't have to think as much about how to explain it to a coach who thinks we're nuts for making that call.

I guess a similar line of thinking would involve a throw-in; if the player catches the throw-in while standing with one foot OOB, the throw-in ends when it touched that player, and that same player caused the ball to be OOB. (Although the rule does specifically mention the throw-in ends when touching a player that is either in bounds or OOB.) So, I guess in that case two things can happen at once, so it's kind of the same, only different.

Padgett! Just because you're out of meds doesn't mean you need to make the rest of us suffer with headaches trying to sort this thing out! :p

Poor A3, if he had just let the ball bounce once in the backcourt before touching it, this thread would not have been started.

no

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.:rolleyes:

Haven't We Been Through This Before ???
 

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.

But for those of you who just joined us........
 

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.

Yeah, a lot of us dislike that interp.

The Ransom Of Red Chief mbyron ...
 

"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?

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.

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

Say what???

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

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

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.

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

I sure hope this gets re-addressed by the rules committee! All we really need to know is, does the b/c touch by A meet last/first to touch criteria... simultaneously?

According to the interp issued last year (iirc), yes it does.

Most of us here (not that we carry any weight) think the interp is "wrong."

Well, then I think someone who carries large squirrel n**tz should push this forward.

9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to
the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball
and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In
(a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of Team A, and a player from A was
the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it
after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the
last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second
count.

This interp is a little vague. It doesn't mention if it bounced first or not. Just says it returned to the b/c. It does sound like it conflicts with the interp in question.:)

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.

If, And Only If ...
 

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

The fundamental problem is that the rule doesn't address a very significant variable which is a Team A player touching the ball before the ball itself has established backcourt status.

So if the rule doesn't address it, (doesn't specify that it is a violation) it isn't a violation.

The reason that is doesn't explain it is that it simply can't happen.

Touching the ball instantly gives it BC status and you can't touch the ball before you touch the ball.

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. :D

It's called sarcasm.:rolleyes:

Just don't whip out the interp. :eek:

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.

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

Not to be a smart-a$$ :D, 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.

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), <B>and, at the same time</B>, 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.

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 <B>not</B> 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.

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"

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".

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.

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....

;)

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.

<B>Except</B> 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.

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

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

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).

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. :eek:

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! :D

What Date Does It Fall On This Year ???
 

Did I miss Cinco de Mayo?

That's Easy For You to Say ...
 

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