The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Is this the one? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/55532-one.html)

referee99 Tue Nov 24, 2009 01:43pm

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)

tjones1 Tue Nov 24, 2009 01:47pm

Yes, sir.

Adam Tue Nov 24, 2009 01:51pm

Yep, that's the one. "cause the ball to have back court status" is not the correct rule basis, IMO.

Welpe Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:08pm

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?

Adam Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 638006)
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?

Yep. The committee says that A2 has performed two separate acts simultaneously.
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.

Welpe Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:12pm

Hmmm...maybe this is the "Diebler Rule" then.

M&M Guy Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638008)
Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously.

Hey, I can walk and chew gum at the same time - does that count?

mbyron Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638008)
Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously.

I think the issue is that a cause and its effect cannot be the same event. ;)

tjones1 Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 638011)
Hey, I can walk and chew gum at the same time - does that count?

Nope. Because we all know you really can't do it. :D ;)

Adam Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 638012)
I think the issue is that a cause and its effect cannot be the same event. ;)

Now you're just f$#^&#% with me.

M&M Guy Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:38pm

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.

M&M Guy Tue Nov 24, 2009 02:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjones1 (Post 638015)
Nope. Because we all know you really can't do it. :D ;)

Hey! Don't you have a baseball game to do, or something?

Or, to quote a famous, esteemed member:

Shut up. :p :D

Adam 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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638023)
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.)

Jimmie24 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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638040)
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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 638039)
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 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 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 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.

Adam Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638045)
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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 638044)
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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638045)
Doesn't matter who touched it last in the front court.

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

Jimmie24 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638048)
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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638053)
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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638053)
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:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 03:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638056)
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 Tue Nov 24, 2009 04:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638057)
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?:p:))

Adam Tue Nov 24, 2009 04:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcof83 (Post 638065)
I agree with you guys. So how do you call this in a game situation? (Who gets the first "right thing to do" comment?:p:))

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

bbcof83 Tue Nov 24, 2009 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638066)
When faced with an interp that contradicts a rule, I think it's safe to call it by the rule.

You sir, are a model of consistency. :D

Back In The Saddle Tue Nov 24, 2009 04:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638066)
When faced with an interp that contradicts a rule, I think it's safe to call it by the rule.

Interps are not rules, yet are rules. Discuss. :D

Bishopcolle Tue Nov 24, 2009 08:59pm

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....

BillyMac Tue Nov 24, 2009 09:18pm

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?

Welpe Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 638093)
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?

You don't make it clear when the A player gains possession of the ball, but if it is when he is airborne, then no, it is not a violation. An airborne player of the team not in possession is allowed to jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air and land in the backcourt. 9-9-3 is your reference.

Quote:

Either way, A-1, regardless of where he catches the ball, is the last to touch it in A's frontcourt
Is he though? I don't think he is as he is located in the backcourt. The touch occurs in the backcourt.

Adam Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 638093)
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....

Um, no, it's not a violation because there's a clear exemption for a defensive player to be able to catch the ball in the air and land in the BC. Otherwise it would be a violation, but not for the reason you cite. It would be a violation because he held the ball with FC status and landed in the BC. The scenario you're looking for is for a player holding the ball with both feet in the FC, who then pivots into the BC.

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.

just another ref Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638066)
When faced with an interp that contradicts a rule, I think it's safe to call it by the rule.


I feel the same way about a certain case play.

CoachP Wed Nov 25, 2009 06:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 638093)
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....

No. B1 intercepted, threw a pass...who now has team control?
A1 cannot commit a BC violation without team control.

Nevadaref Wed Nov 25, 2009 09:44am

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.

mbyron Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 638141)
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.

No BC violation. A never had TC in the frontcourt. Since B1's tap does not end TC, continue the 10-second count. ;)

M&M Guy Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 638149)
No BC violation. A never had TC in the frontcourt. Since B1's tap does not end TC, continue the 10-second count. ;)

Actually, A had team control, and the ball did have front court status when B1 tapped it.

bob jenkins Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 638149)
No BC violation. A never had TC in the frontcourt. Since B1's tap does not end TC, continue the 10-second count. ;)

Oh c'mon.

Wait -- I just noticed the smiley.

Nevermind.

Vinski Wed Nov 25, 2009 01:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 638141)
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.

Excellent point. This scenario is fundamentally the same as the controversial OP stitch. There is no way I would ever call Nevada’s scenario a back court violation (Not unless I get hazard pay). However, it adheres to the same principals as the OP sitch, which by interpretation is a BC violation according to the feds. I have been in the camp of not calling that particular BC violation because the reasoning in the interp didn’t seem strong enough. Now, after looking at it from the point of view presented by Nevada, I feel even stronger that the OP sitch is an improper interpretation of back court.

BillyMac Wed Nov 25, 2009 07:50pm

When Irish Eyes Are Smiley ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 638159)
I just noticed the smiley.

I missed the smiley the first time. I had to read it several times because mbyron is usually pretty reliable with his interpretations, citations, and opinions. I was going to reply with a corection, but M&M Guy beat me to the punch.

Johnny Ringo Thu Nov 26, 2009 03:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 638141)
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.

What do you call here?

mbyron Thu Nov 26, 2009 07:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo (Post 638277)
What do you call here?

He calls nothing because:

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.

Johnny Ringo Thu Nov 26, 2009 03:07pm

Does the 10-second count continue?

BillyMac Thu Nov 26, 2009 03:46pm

New Count ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo (Post 638325)
Does the 10-second count continue?

Continue? No. But, start a new count as soon as the ball touches A1 in Nevadaref's question, or in more general terms for this situation, when the ball touches the floor in the backcourt, or touches a Team A player in the backcourt.

Raymond Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 638020)
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.

This is the same logical thought pattern I came up with the last time I was involved in this discussion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1