Is this the one?

Adam · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 02:51pm

Dude, the ice is cracking. The obvious flaw in your comparison is there is no "first to touch" requirement for an OOB violation. OOB violations are determined by who "caused" the ball to have OOB status; either by touching it last in bounds or by touching it while standing OOB.

M&M Guy · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Dude, the ice is cracking. The obvious flaw in your comparison is there is no "first to touch" requirement for an OOB violation. OOB violations are determined by who "caused" the ball to have OOB status; either by touching it last in bounds or by touching it while standing OOB.

I know, I know.

But, follow my logic: if you go strictly by definitions, 4-35-1 tells us player location: "The location of a player or non-player is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being (a) inbounds or OOB." 4-4-4 tells us "A ball which touches a player or official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location". Finally, 7-2-1 tells us, "The ball is caused to go OOB by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it..." Ok, so in my play, A1 caused the ball to go OOB because they were the last to touch it in bounds, and the ball became OOB on B1's touch/catch due to their location.

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.)

bob jenkins · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:27pm

Quote:

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.

mbyron · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:31pm

Quote:

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.

Jimmie24 · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:21pm

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.

M&M Guy · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:23pm

Quote:

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?

Jimmie24 · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:29pm

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 · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:29pm

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

Adam · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:31pm

Quote:

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.

M&M Guy · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

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

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

Adam · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:30pm

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

Jimmie24 · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:34pm

Quote:

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 · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:36pm

Quote:

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.

Jimmie24 · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:40pm

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 · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 24, 2009, 03:42pm

Quote:

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.