Backcourt or not

[Nevadaref]

This question is not as simplistic as it first appears.
Most of us would say that this play is not a violation, and the reason is that Team A never established control in the frontcourt.

However, if one follows Situation 10 from the NFHS Interps a couple of years ago (2007-08), then an argument can be made that the ball was controlled while it had frontcourt status. I believe that is wrong and that Situation 10 is a bogus ruling, but it was an official NFHS ruling.

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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This question is not as simplistic as it first appears.

It is simple, in this particular case, because it occurs after a throwin. The "infamous" Situation 10 that you have cited refers to a ball being passed between teammates in the frontcourt, which, as you have described, is not as simple as it first appears.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It is simple, in this particular case, because it occurs after a throwin. The "infamous" Situation 10 that you have cited refers to a ball being passed between teammates in the frontcourt, which, as you have described, is not as simple as it first appears.

Hey. You're interfering with Nevada's capacity to identify a cloud in every silver lining.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It is simple, in this particular case, because it occurs after a throwin. The "infamous" Situation 10 that you have cited refers to a ball being passed between teammates in the frontcourt, which, as you have described, is not as simple as it first appears.

There is no such thing in the rules as "after a throwin." It's either during a throwin, or it's not. In the OP, the throwin is over, so it's not during a throwin.

Nevada is right, the same logic used by the FED in the interp would lead one to call this a violation.

Stupid, but true.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There is no such thing in the rules as "after a throwin." It's either during a throwin, or it's not. In the OP, the throwin is over, so it's not during a throwin.

Nevada is right, the same logic used by the FED in the interp would lead one to call this a violation.

Stupid, but true.

While I understand yours and Nevada's reasoning, I still am missing the one point that Billy brings up: when is team control established?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While I understand yours and Nevada's reasoning, I still am missing the one point that Billy brings up: when is team control established?

When it is caught.

Now shut up.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When it is caught.

Now shut up.

So, you agree there's no violation, right? I understand though, you're probably recovering from having to be in Wisconsin over the weekend...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, you agree there's no violation, right? I understand though, you're probably recovering from having to be in Wisconsin over the weekend...

Good point, and I keep seeing Penny Marshall in my head singing a Disney song.

And I agree there's no violation, but I also question whether the establishment of team control would constitute the last touch in the FC or the first touch in the BC based on the dreaded interp; or persuant to the interp, if it would constitute both.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There is no such thing in the rules as "after a throwin." It's either during a throwin, or it's not. In the OP, the throwin is over, so it's not during a throwin.

The throwin ended when the ball touched B1. Since the throwin ended, this situation occurred after the throwin, but before team control was established. That's what I meant to say. I think.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The throwin ended when the ball touched B1. Since the throwin ended, this situation occurred after the throwin, but before team control was established. That's what I meant to say. I think.

I understand what you were getting at, that the OP is, in contrast with the interp, a situation with no team control. Could be a shot, the original jump ball, or a throwin. I thought (at the time) you were looking at the throwin exception.

My point, however, in answer to your next post, is that while the interp very obviously mentions team control, the leap to that interp from the rule is much smaller than the leap from that interp to another one that says the OP is a violation.

If one event can qualify for two things that must happen at different points in time (the interp) in one instance, why can't they happen in another?

I agree that the team control thing, or the lack of it, would most likely help the committee keep their heads on this one.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point, however, in answer to your next post, is that while the interp very obviously mentions team control, the leap to that interp from the rule is much smaller than the leap from that interp to another one that says the OP is a violation.

If one event can qualify for two things that must happen at different points in time (the interp) in one instance, why can't they happen in another?

I humbly suggest that we all put the one bogus interp behind us and do not mention it again rather that worrying about "If they said that it must mean that they also would say this if asked."

Let us not ask. Stick to the rule as we know it, and make the backcourt violation call, or in this case don't make it, accordingly.

And to anticipate the next question:

Have I decided to totally ignore the above referenced interp?

an emphatic yes

[Adam]

May I humbly suggest you take you suggestion and....

wait a second, wrong discussion. Sorry.

Look, I'm not saying the call should be made any way other than by rule. I'm not even saying Nevada's introduction of the interp into this thread wasn't somewhat gratuitous. But, this is a discussion board; and one with a history of taking a thread and extrapolating on other similar topics. This is especially common when a particular question is answered rather quickly and succinctly (as in this thread).

Feel free to ignore the thread or not (in the interest of not telling you what to do.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada is right, the same logic used by the FED in the interp would lead one to call this a violation.

Nevada is right about this casebook play being "odd", but the casebook play doesn't apply to the original post because team control has not yet been established. In Nevada's infamous casebook play, team control has already been established.