I thought this was the ruling we all thought was wrong.
B3 is the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt, so it can't be a violation.

Hmmmm ~ When does the ball obtain b/c status? When it merely crosses the division line in the air OR when it touches the floor or a player in the b/c?

I'm in the Situation 10 interp camp :D

Agreed.

Apples/Oranges. Causing the ball to obtain BC status is not the violation. The Situation 10 interp directly contradicts both the rule as it written as as it has been called forever.

Right last to touch in f/c & first to touch in the b/c is the violation. So again, we know who deflected toward the b/c but when when did the ball really gain b/c status? And who caused that?

I understand your position, but it works for me & until the guys I work for say otherwise...

What our "employers" say is really irrelevant to the discussion of whether it "should" be a violation.
The rule says team A must be the last to touch "before" the ball gains BC status and the first to touch the ball "after" it has gained BC status.
Events:
A: Team A is last to touch
B: Ball gains BC status
C: Team A is first to touch

How is it possible for a single act (A3 touching the ball) to occur both "before" and "after" any single event?

Agree. And unfortunately(or fortunately), everybody that I know is ignoring that particular interp as being...well...completely idiotic.

Rules Rulz!(most of the time)

Sitch:
A1, in the BC, pass the ball towards A2 along the division line.
B3, standing completely in the FC reaches and tips the pass.
A2, standing in the BC, grabs the ball before it touches the floor in the BC.

The logic of the ruling leads to the conclusion that a violation should be called.
The logic of the rule, however, does not.

It's a single act that somehow, according to 10, has a separate event happen in between it. :)

Personally, I'd rather let play continue anyway, and as long as I have the rule to back me up... ya know? :D

True! Perhaps I'll re-think my position on this before this season kicks off -errrr- tips off.

It's Simple Einsteinian Physics ...
 

I'm sure that the NFHS took into consideration a possible warp in the space time continuum. After that they all got together and performed brain surgery, followed by a quick discovery involving some type of rocket science.

Sorry Coach ...
 

For some reason, every time this situation happens in one of my games, I always seem to blink my eyes and miss the call. When the coach complains about the no call and mentions Situation 10, I explain that I had something in my eye and missed it.

That silly interp directly contradicts the ruling in part (a) of this NFHS Case Book play. Note that NO VIOLATION occurs for the action in part (a). That's neither a backcourt violation or a 10-second count violation.


9.8 SITUATION D: Team A is in control in its backcourt for seven seconds. A1
throws the ball toward A2 in the frontcourt. B1 jumps from Team A’s: (a) frontcourt;
or (b) backcourt and while in the air bats the ball back to A1 in A’s backcourt.
Does this give Team A 10 more seconds to get the ball to the frontcourt?
RULING: Yes, in (a), a new count starts because B1 had frontcourt location when
touching the ball thus giving the ball frontcourt location. In (b), the original count
continues as Team A is still in control and the ball has not gone to frontcourt. (4-
4-2; 4-3; 4-35-1)

9.8 Situation D ...
 

If A1 caught the ball in the air before it hit the floor, then you certainly have an similar situation. Nice catch Nevadaref.

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)

Actually No
 

There is no contradiction whatsoever. The case play you cite doesn't mention whether the ball first touched the ground in the back court or not. Now if the case play had said that A1 caught the ball before it hit the ground then you would have something. However, the case play leaves out that very important point.