Is this the one?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

It has been this way for a while. The ball gained backcourt status when A touched it in the backcourt. That is why it is a violation. If A lets the ball bounce B, by its deflection, caused it to gain backcourt status. The ball was still in team control with front court status until A touched it in backcourt.

But, in the interp, who was the last to touch it in the frontcourt?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yep, I left out the remainder of 7-2-1, which goes on to say "...unless the ball touches a player who is OOB prior to touching something OOB other than a player". So, to me, this is an exception that was added to prevent a loophole caused by simply following ball and player location rules, and the first part of 7-2-1. So what does this exception effectively do? It makes the player who is standing OOB be "...the last player inbounds to touch or be touched by it...", and also caused the ball to be OOB due to their location.

Maybe it was that same "logic" that caused the player in the interp to be the last to touch in the frontcourt, and caused the ball to be in the backcourt due to their location. (Again, for the record, I don't agree; I'm just trying to come up with a sort of logic to possibly explain the interp.)

If they wanted to use that logic, they should have added the similar wording to the backcourt ruling. Without it, the logic is different, the rule is different and the ruling should be different.

[Jimmie24]

Doesn't matter who touched it last in the front court. The ball is still in team A control with front court status. If the ball touches the floor then A touches it, the ball has gained back court status by hitting the floor. With A touching it prior to it hitting the floor A has caused it to have back court status.

[Jimmie24]

The most important thing to remember here is that this is an NFHS rule. There isn't alot of logic.

[Adam]

The rule says team A must be the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status. Impossible to do here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

Doesn't matter who touched it last in the front court. The ball is still in team A control with front court status. If the ball touches the floor then A touches it, the ball has gained back court status by hitting the floor. With A touching it prior to it hitting the floor A has caused it to have back court status.

"cause" is not in the BC rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If they wanted to use that logic, they should have added the similar wording to the backcourt ruling. Without it, the logic is different, the rule is different and the ruling should be different.

I agree.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

Doesn't matter who touched it last in the front court.

That would be incorrect, per 9-9-1.

[Jimmie24]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule says team A must be the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status. Impossible to do here.

By touching the ball prior to it touching the floor, they have caused it to gain bc status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

By touching the ball prior to it touching the floor, they have caused it to gain bc status.

True, but that's not what the rule says.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

By touching the ball prior to it touching the floor, they have caused it to gain bc status.

The notion of causing it to have BC status is not part of the rule in question, viz. 9-9-1:

SECTION 9 BACKCOURT

ART. 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.

OTOH, causing the ball to have BC status IS part of 9-9-2:

ART. 2 . . . While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the
ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball
touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to
touch it in the backcourt.

Alas, this rule is irrelevant to the case.

[Jimmie24]

That is how they determined the ruling. It is a typical NFHS ruling a philosophy. Someone will be around to change a rule again and make it more confusing and less obvious. I agree completely that it isn't supported 100% by the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

That is how they determined the ruling. It is a typical NFHS ruling a philosophy. Someone will be around to change a rule again and make it more confusing and less obvious. I agree completely that it isn't supported 100% by the rules.

That's an understatement. Our problem is that it's actually contradicted by the rule.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's an understatement. Our problem is that it's actually contradicted by the rule.

I agree with you guys. So how do you call this in a game situation? (Who gets the first "right thing to do" comment?)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

I agree with you guys. So how do you call this in a game situation? (Who gets the first "right thing to do" comment?)

When faced with an interp that contradicts a rule, I think it's safe to call it by the rule.