Backcourt question
 

Someone on our statewide forum posed this question:

"Team A has the ball in their frontcourt; A1's pass to A2 is deflected by B1, and as the ball is bouncing toward the division line, A2 & B3 simultaneously touch the ball, causing it to go into backcourt. A4 is then the first to retrieve the ball. Is this a violation?"

I'm conflicted on this. Thoughts?

Good question. I would say no violation.

It is not possible to state that a member of Team A was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt.

On the contrary, I say. It is not possible to state that member of Team A did NOT touch the ball last in the frontcourt. Team control, last to touch, first to touch. On paper, this is a violation.

I'm trying not to get caught up in that "spirit of the rule" crud, but my initial instinct told me, no violation. I can't back that up in the book, though.

1. A simultaneous actions by two opposing players are not treated the same as a singular action. A simultaneous touch by opponents is not the same as only one player touching the ball. So the consequences of the action are different. This is true for a simultaneous foul as well. Consider the impact on the concept of continuous motion or how the game is resumed.

2. Consider that the ball went OOB instead of into the backcourt. Which team would get the throw-in? Team B wouldn't automatically be awarded the ball following a simultaneous touch. They would have to have the AP arrow. However, if a member of Team A was the last to touch the ball, then Team B would be awarded the throw-in. So logically we can conclude that a member of Team A was not the last to touch the ball.

3. So the last to touch requirement must be singular with regard to a team. Therefore, we can state that this requirement was not met by the circumstances of the play, and thus there is no violation.

Simultaneous actions don't imply that neither one touched the ball last but, instead, that both did. The handling of these cases (OOB example) is not because a team was not last to touch but because both are in violation of a rule and both are to be penalized. Both infractions are to be penalized but have conflicting penalties (possession). That fact forces us to the AP arrow.

Therefore, to have a backcourt violation doesn't require that team A be that sole team to last touch the ball. Only that the other team didn't touch it after them.

In practice, I'm probably not going to be able to tell that precisely and will only call it if they obviously touched it last and alone.

Forget practice, Camron. This is a theoretical discussion. :)

Let's take it as a given that the ball is knocked into the backcourt while under the control of Team A by A2 and B3 simultaneously touching the ball, and then recovered by A4.

The debate is to treat this as both being the last to touch or absolving A2 of being the last to touch due to the participation of B3.

By pure physics I believe that treating it as A2 being the last to touch has great merit. There is no denying that he touched the ball and that no one touched it after him.

However, from the standpoint of the written rules, I don't believe that the words were drafted with this context in mind. Rather I think that the rule was written to cover only a singular final touch. The implication of the word "last" in our language is a singularity. As in being the last to do something or to finish last. If there is a tie, it is usually specified.

Furthermore, the absence of words to the effect of "or simultaneously with an opponent" lends credibility to deciding this is not a violation. I just don't believe that the rules writers intended to penalize a team in such a case. However, I do hate hanging my hat on "the purpose and intent of the rules" though.

You know whose expertise we could use in this thread? BktBallRef

I haven't seen a post by him in a long time. Anyone know if he is okay?

Perhaps he is posting under another screen name.

1) He's OK.

2) No.

NFHS Rule 9-1- "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

-From the OP:
- Did team A have team control in the frontcourt? - <font color = red>YES!</font>
- Was a team A player last to touch the ball in the frontcourt before it went into the backcourt?- <font color = red>YES - A2!</font>
- Was a team A player first to touch the ball in the backcourt? - <font color = red>YES- A4!</font>

All of the criteria necessary for a backcourt violation have been met, by rule.

Rules Rulz!

Not necessarily. Ties for last place (and first place) happen all the time. When they happen, you can correctly say, "they were both last."

I know how you feel about the "intent" of the rule, but be careful. There's nothing in writing to back up our inferred intent. Unless someone has something more substantial, I say Jurassic is right.

Bingo! If somebody asks you to make a ruling on this play, you have to do so using what you have available. And what you have available is the precise rules language of rule 9-1. There's nuthin' written anywhere that I know of that can be used to argue that a violation did not occur.

JR and Camron are correct. Camron, also makes a good practical point about seeing the play.

MTD, Sr.

My originai thought was backcourt violation until I read this part. Not because of a "rulz" issue but because of a physics issue. I think you have your thinking on physics backwards, but have an interesting point. Looking at the "big picture" A2 would be trying to keep the ball in the front court, thus it can be inferred that their motion would be going in that direction. Conversely, B2's effort would be to direct their momentum and the ball in the opposite direction. If the ball ends up in A2's backcourt (B's frontcourt) it could logically be deduced that B2 was the last to touch the ball thus negating "simultaneous". Sort of along the lines of an object in motion will continue in motion unless/until affected by an opposing force. It would be a physical impossibility for A2's forward momentum to cause the ball to go backwards.
I know it is not a "rule" but it is a law. At least that is what that Newton guy said. (Shortly after he made those tasty cookies!) So having said all of that, I am going to file it under, I would have to see the play described before I rendered judgement.

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.

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?:D
________
Vaporizer television

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. :p

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.

Are we still talking about basketball? ;)

Better Suited For Forum Erotica ???
 

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

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

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. :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

team control
 

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?

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?

No, a deflection does not end team control.

MP: I've also heard the four criteria, but you're right about the redundancy, so three makes more sense. I always go by three: "Team control, last to touch, first to touch."

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.

Touching by anyone does not end team control after that team control was obtained. That includes simultaneous touching by the offense and defense. That was my point....and I'm missing your point. It is....? :confused:

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. :D

I was trying to point out to him that a deflection by anyone doesn't end team control. It appears you "got it". He wanted to know if team control ended on the deflection.

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. :)

There in lies the great debate.

Mark, his point was that no one from team A need ever touch the ball in the FC for a violation to occur.
IOW the statement that team A must be the last to touch the ball in the FC is not correct.

That's because there are two different articles which set forth criteria for a backcourt violation. For an article 1 violation, the rules do specify that a player of Team A must touch the ball in the frontcourt, however, that is not the case for article 2.

Thus in order to make the four points system as general as possible and have it cover violations for either article, it is necessary to list four separate criteria as BktBallRef does.

I must admit in all my years, going back to the Naismith days, I've never had the situation in which A1, in his backcourt, throws the ball with such a spin that it hits in frontcourt then comes back into the backcourt where it is touched by a member of team A having had no one touch it in the frontcourt. However, this would be a violation.

Although rarely, I have had situations in which A1, standing in backcourt near the division line, makes a bounce pass to A2 (who is also standing in backcourt near the other end of the division line) and the ball bounces in frontcourt during the pass and then A2 grabs it.

The difference between your two situations is exactly why the wording of 9-9-2 was changed for the 2008-09 season.
Prior to then your second play was not a violation by the strict text of the rule.

I happen to believe that it was due to a post which I wrote on this forum, but that may be an overly optimistic opinion.

I believe your posts are the genesis for most editorial changes. :p