Valid rule interpreation RE: backcourt violation
 

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

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)

Is this interpretation still valid?

OT: Why isn't the Past Interps Archive pinned anymore?? It's not pinned anymore in any forum :(

-Josh

Can of worms, Josh.

Yes, it's still valid.

But as Snaq said, you are opening a can of worms. :)

The agruing point is that A1 is the last to touch in the frontcourt and the first to touch in the backcourt at the same time.

I promise I'm not trying to open a can of worms. I couldn't remember if they came out with a different interpretation or not. We had this happen in the first half of our second game tonight and we discussed it over halftime. I didn't have my interpretations with me but I knew I had previously read this situation. Please lock this thread. Thanks

-Josh

Did you call the violation? The prevailing opinion here is that this runs contrary to the rule.

Forgive me if I reopened the topic. I know it was a hot topic but I thought they truly came out with another interpretation but I couldn't find one.

-Josh

I was C and I did not go out of my PCA to call it.

-Josh

Is there a contradictory interpretation for NCAA M or W? Just out of curiosity. Thanks

-Josh

It never was valid.

Recent versions of rules committees have been notorious for coming up with rulings that are either not support by or are even contradictory with the rules....and they don't correct them either.

If you wish to delete the thread, just delete your opening post. The entire thread will go.

That is not necessarily a unanimous opinion.

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.

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.

Yes, however....
 

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.