Valid rule interpreation RE: backcourt violation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

The Fed needs to come up with a order of precedence so when these disrepancies come up, we know which one we should enforce.

That would involve acknowledging the discrepancy.
In the mean time, I won't be making this call because:
1. It's contrary to the rule.
2. It's not the expected call on this play.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That would involve acknowledging the discrepancy.
In the mean time, I won't be making this call because:
1. It's contrary to the rule.
2. It's not the expected call on this play.

It would acknowledge that there maybe discrepancies and when there are here is the order of precedence. They could just make a blanket statement. I understand your view point on this particular rule. However, you are missing my point. When an official interpretation comes out after the books have been published, how can we assume that they made a bad ruling? How can we assume that they didn't realize the interpretation was contrary to the rule? It's my position that the Official Rules Interpretation takes precedence over the rule book and case plays. It's a way for them to correct mistakes in the rule book or case book without repubishing the books. We are not on the rules committee so we can't assume the interpretation is not what they wanted just because it disagrees with the rule book.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

It would acknowledge that there maybe discrepancies and when there are here is the order of precedence. They could just make a blanket statement. I understand your view point on this particular rule. However, you are missing my point. When an official interpretation comes out after the books have been published, how can we assume that they made a bad ruling? How can we assume that they didn't realize the interpretation was contrary to the rule? It's my position that the Official Rules Interpretation takes precedence over the rule book and case plays. It's a way for them to correct mistakes in the rule book or case book without repubishing the books. We are not on the rules committee so we can't assume the interpretation is not what they wanted just because it disagrees with the rule book.

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.

How about using the most recent publication as the one with precedence. In that case, it's the rule book. They had an off-season to change the rule if they wanted to.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How about using the most recent publication as the one with precedence. In that case, it's the rule book. They had an off-season to change the rule if they wanted to.

I can agree with that, however, it has taken a rules committee years before changing a rule. So, although you have a point, I can still see where the rules committee might still want this interp to be enforced. Really, the Fed needs to have a clear process and let the officiating community now what it is. Does an Official Interp override the rule book? Does the fact that the next rule book, published after the Official Interp came out, wasn't changed mean the interp is no longer in effect? When do official interps expire and are they communicated to the officiating community as such?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I can agree with that, however, it has taken a rules committee years before changing a rule. So, although you have a point, I can still see where the rules committee might still want this interp to be enforced. Really, the Fed needs to have a clear process and let the officiating community now what it is. Does an Official Interp override the rule book? Does the fact that the next rule book, published after the Official Interp came out, wasn't changed mean the interp is no longer in effect? When do official interps expire and are they communicated to the officiating community as such?

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.

And I disagree with this, but that's ok. I wouldn't lose any sleep over a partner making this call, but you'd better be prepared to make other calls based on that same logic. (see my previous post)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That would involve acknowledging the discrepancy.
In the mean time, I won't be making this call because:
1. It's contrary to the rule.
2. It's not the expected call on this play.

I can agree with you on #2, but #1 is up to interpretation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I can agree with you on #2, but #1 is up to interpretation.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Which is exactly the same as the interp we're talking about. The ball doesn't gain BC status until A1 catches it; yet somehow he was also the last to touch it before he caught it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Which is exactly the same as the interp we're talking about. The ball doesn't gain BC status until A1 catches it; yet somehow he was also the last to touch it before he caught it?

Ball had frontcourt status until A1 touched it, so A1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ball had frontcourt status until A1 touched it, so A1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

So you're going to call a violation on the dribbler in my alternate play?

And if the rule said it was illegal to cause the ball to go into the backcourt, you'd be correct.

But it doesn't.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Interesting situation...I would agree that with this logic, it would be a BC Violation as well...hmmm....

-Josh

[mbyron]

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.

[gslefeb]

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.