![]() |
|
|
|||
I agree
The rules committee's job is to come up with the rules and inform the officiating community what they are. They go about this in one of several ways:
1. Rule Book 2. Case Play 3. Official Interpretations 4. Camps/Clinics Sometimes the written documents don't agree. So my question is which has precedence? That's not always an easy question to answer. The front of the Case book states that the case play interpretations have the approval of the rules committee. That leds me to believe that they are just as authoritative as the rule book. So when a case play differs from the rule book what do we do? Some will suggest we use the rule book, some the case play. However, we don't know which is actually correct. They could have forgotten to update the rule book to reflect the changes made to the case play. Or they could have missed a case play that needed updating after making a rules change. As an example from my ASA Softball Rule Book from a few years back. The rule on dropped third strikes was written poorly. It led the reader to believe that the batter couldn't run with two outs when 1st base was occupied. The actual rule is with 2 outs you can advance any time on a dropped third strike whether 1st base is occupied or not. However, the case plays and the official interpretations from the camps disagreed with the written rule. This is an example of where the case play took precedence over the rule. However, when it comes to Official Interpretations, these often come out after the rule books and case books have gone to press. I believe this takes precedence over the rule book and case book. We may not like it and it may not agree with the rule book, but until the Fed or my state association comes out and says the interpretation is wrong, then I'd have to go with the Official Interpretation. The Fed needs to come up with a order of precedence so when these disrepancies come up, we know which one we should enforce.
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association Multicounty Softball Association Multicounty Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Yes, however....
Quote:
And, for the record, I don't like the interpretation either. It is contrary to logic, in my opinion. However, I do believe this is what the rules committee wants even though the rule book is written contrary to the interp.
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association Multicounty Softball Association Multicounty Basketball Officials Association |
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
I can buy that
Quote:
My main point is this, when an official interpretation comes out after the rulebooks are pubished, we don't have the luxury to ignore it just because it doesn't agree with the rule book. The official interp takes precedence, IMHO, over the rule book.
__________________
Gwinnett Umpires Association Multicounty Softball Association Multicounty Basketball Officials Association |
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
I can agree with you on #2, but #1 is up to interpretation.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
||||
I'm not sure how, to be honest.
The rule says a team must be the last to touch the ball "before" it goes into the back court and the first to touch it "after" it goes into the back court. You have three events, really. 1. Ball is touched before it goes into the BC. 2. Ball goes into the BC. 3. Ball is touched after it goes into the BC. How is it possible for all of these events to be wrapped into one, with A1 catching the ball in the BC. Aside from that, the logic of this ruling leads to other calls that go against the rule. A1 dribbling with BC status near the division line. B1 guarding with FC status, bats the ball (giving it FC status with continued team control) where it hits A1's knee. By the logic of the ruling we're discussing, this is a BC violation.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
The ball batted in the air across the division line from frontcourt to backcourt does not have backcourt status while it is in the air. Similar to the ball being batting in the air across an endline/sideline--when does the ball achieve OOB status? I'm sure this has been debated here before.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:36am. |
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Ball had frontcourt status until A1 touched it, so A1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
-Josh |
|
|||
Part of the confusion comes from the concept of causing the ball to have BC status. This concept appears in 9-9-2 but is absent from 9-9-1. Importing it into 9-9-1 seems to be the root of the (erroneous) interp.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
If A1 is standing in the Backcourt, A1 has backcourt status.
If the Ball has FC status, as soon as it hits A1 - the ball now has backcourt status. It does not have FC status for 0.01 secs and then BC status. The rule states - the last to touch in FC. Since A1 has BC status, how can they have been deemed to touch it in FC? The Last player to touch the ball in the FC was B1 The interp is interesting in the wording.. as it states - "caused the ball to have BC status"; This is not the same as last to touch in FC. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Backcourt violation rule change? (over and back) | HL Clippenchain | Basketball | 24 | Thu Jan 24, 2008 01:27pm |
Backcourt violation? | mplagrow | Basketball | 3 | Sat Jan 25, 2003 05:08pm |
Backcourt Violation? | Sleeper | Basketball | 10 | Mon Dec 09, 2002 04:06pm |
Backcourt violation?? | glind | Basketball | 6 | Mon Jan 08, 2001 09:43am |