Backcourt question

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[just another ref]

If we can stretch this thread to 4 or 5 pages, it may provoke an editorial revision in the new books when they come out. In the meantime, there is no definitive answer to the question.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If we can stretch this thread to 4 or 5 pages, it may provoke an editorial revision in the new books when they come out. In the meantime, there is no definitive answer to the question.

But every first year philosophy student knows that you make something definitive by saying it is not definite.
(Just doing my part to expand the thread)

[BBrules]

I could use some clarification on the team control part of this. Does it end when the ball is deflected by B1 and both B1 and A1 are going after the ball with no player control?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If we can stretch this thread to 4 or 5 pages, it may provoke an editorial revision in the new books when they come out. In the meantime, there is no definitive answer to the question.

Yup, but if by some wierd happenstance this play ever did come up before we got some direction, you'd still have to make a call...and then no doubt have to justify the call that you made. I can half-azzed justify a violation using current rule language. I can't come up with anything though rules-wise that would justify not calling a violation.

It's a CYA call.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bainsey

all three backcourt violation criteria are met.

There's four backcourt violation criteria, not three.

1) there must be team control
2) the team in control must be last to touch the ball in frontcourt
3) the ball must achieve backcourt status
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

Ya' know - now that I think about it - there's actually a redundancy to criteria 3 and 4. If number 4 says the touch must come after the ball has been in the backcourt, there's really no need for number 3, because number 4 requires the ball to have achieved backcourt status. What do you guys think?

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

There's four backcourt violation criteria, not three.

1) there must be team control
2) the team in control must be last to touch the ball in frontcourt
3) the ball must achieve backcourt status
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

Ya' know - now that I think about it - there's actually a redundancy to criteria 3 and 4. If number 4 says the touch must come after the ball has been in the backcourt, there's really no need for number 3, because number 4 requires the ball to have achieved backcourt status. What do you guys think?

I think that your #3 is wrong. The ball must achieve frontcourt status (first).

Then (2) should read: The team in control must be the last to touch before the ball enters the backcourt.

The first touch need not be in the frontcourt and the second touch need not be in the backcourt.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I think that your #3 is wrong. The ball must achieve frontcourt status (first).

If the ball had not achieved frontcourt status, we wouldn't even be discussing a backcourt violation. That's like saying "the game must have begun" should be required as one of the criteria.

OK - that's a slight exaggeration.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

...
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

Ya' know - now that I think about it - there's actually a redundancy to criteria 3 and 4. If number 4 says the touch must come after the ball has been in the backcourt, there's really no need for number 3, because number 4 requires the ball to have achieved backcourt status. What do you guys think?

There in lies the great debate.