Backcourt question

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Let me throw this into the mix. Say team A had control and they are in their frontcourt when A1 passes to A2. The ball deflects off A2 into their backcourt. A1 races after it and touches it in the backcourt at exactly the same time B1 touches it. It is a violation on team A? It's the same principle as the other situation in this thread. It comes down to this - does a simultaneous touching of the ball by a member of each team also count as an individual touching by each player? If yes, then we have a violation in both cases. If no, then no violation in either case.

I guess it is dependent on how you define "first to touch". Can two players each touch a ball "first"? If I touch the ball at exactly the same time as you, did I touch it "first"? To me, "first" means "before anyone else", not "at the same time as someone else". If we touch at the same time, then no one was "first". To be "first" at doing something, you have to do it before anyone else does it. To be "last" at something, everyone else has to have done it before you did. I don't have violations in either case.

Of course, I could be wrong. I was wrong once before - I think it was in 1970.

Given the NFHS backcourt interpretation and since I am an interloping troublemaker: suppose team A has TC in the frontcourt and B deflects the ball into the backcourt. In a) before the ball bounces A1 and B1 simultaneously touch the ball. In b) A1 touches the ball simultaneous to the ball touching the floor. In C) A1 and B1 touch the ball simultaneous to the ball touching the floor. Whatcha got?
________
Vaporizer television

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

To me, "first" means "before anyone else", not "at the same time as someone else". If we touch at the same time, then no one was "first". To be "first" at doing something, you have to do it before anyone else does it.

So, in the Olympic 50m swimming final (or any other racing sport's final), if there's a tie for first place, then neither of athletes get a gold medal?

No. It's happened before, and BOTH get a gold medal. They were both first. (It goes gold-gold-bronze, for those keeping track of the medal count.)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bainsey

So, in the Olympic 50m swimming final (or any other racing sport's final), if there's a tie for first place, then neither of athletes get a gold medal?

No. It's happened before, and BOTH get a gold medal. They were both first. (It goes gold-gold-bronze, for those keeping track of the medal count.)

That's because it's written into their rules. Show me where it's written into NF basketball rules. If a game ends with both teams having the same number of points, do both teams win? Of course, I wouldn't know, since I've never worked a game in which both teams had the same number of points at the end of regulation time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Let me throw this into the mix. Say team A had control and they are in their frontcourt when A1 passes to A2. The ball deflects off A2 into their backcourt. A1 races after it and touches it in the backcourt at exactly the same time B1 touches it. It is a violation on team A? It's the same principle as the other situation in this thread. It comes down to this - does a simultaneous touching of the ball by a member of each team also count as an individual touching by each player? If yes, then we have a violation in both cases. If no, then no violation in either case.

I guess it is dependent on how you define "first to touch". Can two players each touch a ball "first"? If I touch the ball at exactly the same time as you, did I touch it "first"? To me, "first" means "before anyone else", not "at the same time as someone else". If we touch at the same time, then no one was "first". To be "first" at doing something, you have to do it before anyone else does it. To be "last" at something, everyone else has to have done it before you did. I don't have violations in either case.

Of course, I could be wrong. I was wrong once before - I think it was in 1970.

Or, to do something first could mean to do something with no one else before having done so before....which allows for ties for first.

I maintain that at least one person has to have been the last to touch it and be the first to touch it....but it oculd be more than one person in the case of simultaneous touching.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I maintain that at least one person has to have been the last to touch it and be the first to touch it....but it could be more than one person in the case of simultaneous touching.

Are we still talking about basketball?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Are we still talking about basketball?

I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully nobody will post images. The moderators would really have to act fast to delete those.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Are we still talking about basketball?

Sounds like Camron is describing his recent trip to the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Camron, I am sorry for encouraging Mark like this but what do you expect from a couple of old codgers like us.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Show me where it's written into NF basketball rules.

What, the definition of "first" and "last"?

Those are simple English words, not basketball terms. We're expected to know their meaning coming into games.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A2's touch could have just as well been an attempt to keep it away from B2 without any regard to the direction.

Imagine a brief tussle for the ball where B2 is trying to pull the ball form A2...in directions just the opposite of your scenario...but brief enough to not warrant a held ball....and the both lose it at the same time.

It could have also been a scramble for a loose ball that just happened to squirt out of a pile of players to the backcourt having last touched a player on each team at the same time.

Thus the reason at the end of the post I said I would have to see it to call it.
I agree with you 100% that different actions may get you different results. That is why in looking at the big picture, IE what happened prior to player/ball contact, will have a lot to do with the resulting call for a violation or the no call.

[just another ref]

As for the OP, realistically, simultaneous touch = I don't know who touched it last = no violation.

[bob jenkins]

On BI, the ball becomes dead. So, if A (or B) commits BI, and then B (or A) also touches the ball in the cylinder..., the second touching is ignored. But if they both touch the ball simultaneously ...

Of, if A and B enter the lane simultaneously on a FT ....

Can we use the same principles in the play at hand?

(I'd like to see the OP ruled the same as simultaneously touching the ball before it goes OOB -- use the arrow -- but that clearly isn't supported by the current rule)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

On BI, the ball becomes dead. So, if A (or B) commits BI, and then B (or A) also touches the ball in the cylinder..., the second touching is ignored. But if they both touch the ball simultaneously ...

Of, if A and B enter the lane simultaneously on a FT ....

Can we use the same principles in the play at hand?

(I'd like to see the OP ruled the same as simultaneously touching the ball before it goes OOB -- use the arrow -- but that clearly isn't supported by the current rule)

The 2 instances cited above involve dual violations--simultaneously committed by either team. In the OP, only team A could possibly be called for a violation. Imo, that's why you can't apply the same principles. Different animals.

We also know that simultaneous touching on a loose ball does not end team control either by rule, so that has to be considered also.

Again, jmo but I think that by using a strict reading of R9-1, the criteria for a backcourt violation are met by the OP. If I had to defend that call in writing, there's nothing else I can think of to defend any different ruling.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bainsey

What, the definition of "first" and "last"?

No. Reading my post, it should have been obvious that I implied there was no NF basketball rule that states if two teams have the same number of points at the end of regulation, then they both are awarded victory, as it is written into the rules of other sports.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We also know that simultaneous touching on a loose ball does not end team control either by rule, so that has to be considered also.

Does individual touching by the defensive team end team control? Apples and oranges here, I think.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Reading my post, it should have been obvious that I implied there was no NF basketball rule that states if two teams have the same number of points at the end of regulation, then they both are awarded victory, as it is written into the rules of other sports.

That doesn't change the fact that there are indeed simulataneous firsts, where multiple people/incidents can be first. In the case of the aforementioned backcourt question, both teams were first on the last frontcourt touch, and therefore, all three backcourt violation criteria are met.