![]() |
Is this the one?
Is this Rules Interp the one that so many disagree with?
From 2007-08 Interps: 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) |
Yes, sir.
|
Yep, that's the one. "cause the ball to have back court status" is not the correct rule basis, IMO.
|
I was noodling this situation over some after re-reading the backcourt rules and I cannot understand where the rule support exists to call this a violation. A was in team control in the front court and was the first to touch the ball in the backcourt but was not the last to touch the ball in the front court.
What rule is violated here? Or is that the question that everybody else is wondering too? |
Quote:
1. Last to touch the ball while it had FC status. 2. First to touch the ball while it had BC status. Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously. |
Hmmm...maybe this is the "Diebler Rule" then.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But seriously...
How about this - A1 throws a pass, and B1 intercepts the pass, but also happens to be standing completely OOB. Who "caused" the ball to be OOB? I know and understand the terminology between a "player" touching the ball while OOB vs. another person, such as official, coach, bench personnel, etc. But isn't this kind of the same "logic" used for this famous interp? B1 intercepting the pass while OOB meant, in effect, that they were the last to touch the ball with inbounds status, and then the first to touch while OOB, thus making them responsible for the violation. If B1 had let the ball bounce OOB first, then A would be responsible for the violation because the ball then had OOB status on the bounce. Isn't this similar to the line of thinking that, in the interp, catching the ball in the backcourt before the bounce has the same "cause and effect" of the player intercepting (or touching) a pass while OOB? Yep, I'm on very thin ice here. But I'm simply trying to come up with the "logic" behind the committee's interp. |
Quote:
Or, to quote a famous, esteemed member: Shut up. :p :D |
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.
|
Quote:
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.) |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
The most important thing to remember here is that this is an NFHS rule. There isn't alot of logic.
|
The rule says team A must be the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status. Impossible to do here.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
OTOH, causing the ball to have BC status IS part of 9-9-2: Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If B intercepts the ball in A's frontcourt and throws a bullet towards B's frontcourt for a break-away, but A-1 leaps high into the air a step in front of the division line (in A's frontcourt), and then falls or lands in A's backcourt from the momentum of the leap, isn't that a backcourt violation on A? Exactly same as the interp--the exception being a deflected touch by B, instead of a pass. Either way, A-1, regardless of where he catches the ball, is the last to touch it in A's frontcourt and when he touches down in A's backcourt, it is a violation. I think the interp is 100% correct.....IMHO....
|
Anybody Got Any Aspirin ???
How many times do we have to go through this? Don't you all have a turkey to defrost, or some yams to candy, or some berries to cran?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The applicable rule for the play in the interp says the team must be the last to touch the ball "before" it went into the BC. The ball gained BC status at the moment it touched A2, and the last person to touch it before that was B. No violation. |
Quote:
I feel the same way about a certain case play. |
Quote:
A1 cannot commit a BC violation without team control. |
Please analyze the following play with consideration to the interp:
A1 is holding the ball and standing on the 3pt line in his backcourt. He throws a pass towards A2 who has a similar position in Team A's frontcourt. However, B1 jumps from the center restraining circle just inside Team A's frontcourt and bats the pass back towards A1 who catches the ball. The ball never touches the floor and neither A1 nor A2 move during the play. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Wait -- I just noticed the smiley. Nevermind. |
Quote:
|
When Irish Eyes Are Smiley ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. He recognizes the impossibility of following both the rule and the interp in every case. 2. He chooses to follow the rule where the two diverge. 3. By the rule, this situation is nothing. |
Does the 10-second count continue?
|
New Count ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51am. |