No.

The ball is still "in" the frontcourt until it touches something/someone in the backcourt. So the person who catches the ball in the backcourt is - technically and in opposition to all established laws of physics and logic - the last person to touch. Because the ball still had frontcourt status.

Like others have said, I don't like the interpretation, and I think it is the wrong ruling...but I call it the way my State tells me to call it.

So, I took this to the new/unpatched ref study group the area director holds every year. I first asked the VP for our chapter and he kind of agreed that it wasn't a violation, but he's a guy that will go digging to make sure he or someone else is wrong/right. A fellow young ref listening said it wasn't a violation and he wouldn't have called it a violation either. But after some researching the VP said that we were more than likely wrong and to ask the area director. So when he came back into the room I handed him both the situation, the situation 10 and the ruling based on situation 10. After reading it through a few times, he said that yes it was a violation and his emphasis that helped me was the team control.

If I had had this situation before looking into it, I would have let the call go. But after talking to two of the veterans in my area, I will go with their knowledge. There are a few reasons why, but the biggest of my reasons is that if a coach comes up to talk about it, I can fall back on the knowledge of the more veteran officials that the area coaches know and then give the reasoning I was given. Its my safety net that I trust will help me if I ever have this happen to me. (Though given all the discussion among just us refs, imagine how it can be discussed in other areas of the sport, man, what a headache...)

Read your own post. It is still in frontcourt until it touches.....

That's the whole problem. The guy touched it. It gained backcourt status when he touched it, not immediately after. The ball did not have frontcourt status when he touched it. The interp is bogus and contradictory.

One cannot follow both the rule and the interp, and the rule has been around longer. Easy choice to me.

OK...I read my own post. Now you tell me why the ball "did not have frontcourt status when he touched it." When exactly did the frontcourt status end? What caused it to go away? Some magical point in time when frontcourt staus miraculously ends?

The ball retains its frontcourt status until it touches/is touched by something/someone in the backcourt.

It has one or the other, not both. If the ball touched the floor first, would it still momentarily have frontcourt status before gaining backcourt status? No.

When it touches the floor or the player, frontcourt status is gone.

That's correcdt...but in your last post you said it "did not have frontcourt status when he touched it".

How come no one has responded to BktBallRef's post, back at #9:

Isn't that the essentially the same theory - if B was the last to touch the ball inbounds, and A3 is the next to touch the ball while standing OOB, A3 is effectively the last to touch it, then cause it to go OOB. I know that's not the way the rule is written, but that is effectively what happens. The backcourt interp essentially follows that same line of reasoning.

Look at it this way - if we applied how we think the backcourt interp should be to OOB violations, here's what would happen: B would be the last to touch inbounds, then A3 touches the ball while standing OOB. When A3 touched it, the ball would gain OOB status (or backcourt status in what we think the interp should read), and therefore B would have caused the ball to go OOB (or the last to touch before the backcourt). But we don't call the violation on B, the violation is on A3 for being OOB at the time of the touch.

When I think of the backcourt interp in those terms, it doesn't sound quite as off-the-wall as it initially looked.

True. Unfortunately one part of the rule is written in terms of last touch/first touch (9-9-1 and all five 9.9.1 case plays), and another part of the rule is written in terms of causing the ball to change status (9-9-2 and various Interps). These are different criteria, and the confusion stems from NFHS pretending that they're not.

The OOB rule is strictly in terms of causing the ball to change status, and so there's no confusion.

That's what I meant to say.

When he touched it, it no longer had frontcourt status.

The "caused to go OOB" rule has a specific statement that A3 casues the ball to go OOB in this situation. Without this statement, then the general "the last person to touch before it went OOB" rule would apply. And, the BC rule has only the general statement, not the specific exception.

It doesn't make any difference whether the ball has FC status or not.

The rule says "if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

That signifies that the player is in the FC when the ball touches him meaning player status is the key, not ball status.

I understand the OOB rule has that exception specifically written in, while the backcourt rule and interp doesn't.

I'm not trying to justify the interp by any specific rule; I'm only trying to get into the minds of the committee, and how they got to that specific interp. That's the only way I can think of is to compare it to the ball and player status of that OOB play.

I'm still not sure the interp is correct, but at least (in my mind) it's not as far-fetched as it initially appeared. Maybe they need to adjust some wording in the backcourt rule to make this interp make more sense?

It doesn't make any sense at all....

A1 in the BC near the division line on one side of the court passes the ball to A2, also in the BC near the division line but across the court. B1 tries to intercept the pass....leaping from frontcourt....and gets a fingertip on the ball but the ball continues on to A2.

Do you really think this should be a violation?

What does it matter whether I think it should be or not? :confused:

The rule, and interp, exist, and we all need to call it the way the committee says it needs to be called, whether we like it or not. All I've tried to do is come up with some logical explanation of how they came up with the interp, so I have a little better insight into how they want things called.

I never said I agreed with them. :)

Why? Because understanding the reason and philosophy behind a rule will lead you to appying it correctly. Rules should generally makes sense...and should exist to not allow one team an unfair benefit.

Yes, they both exist. And they contradict each other. So, when faced with a contradiction, you have to decide which one is right...the rule that has existed forever and is generally well understood by most officials or a recent case that contradicts the rule, is not how it has been called for ages, AND doesn't make sense.

There is no logical reason...there are just too many holes in it. Whoever wrote this interp. doesn't know the rule.