Back Court vs. Front Court.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by camron rust

whoever wrote this interp. Doesn't know the rule.

+1

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

You are leaving out a third possibility. It is also possible that the rules commitee sees a hole in the rule or has changed the official interpretation. We don't know what goes on in these meetings. It could be as some suggest that they don't know the rule. I find that hard to believe because it is not a hard rule to understand. I believe some are assuming a level of incompetence on the rules commitee. I also believe that some are assuming that a single person wrote this interp. I for one would like to know a little more about the process before I start making these assumptions. It maybe that the rules committee voted on this interp and that it is the consensus of the committee. It maybe that they have consulted the rule book and case play and just interpret the rule differently. Or it could be as some suggest that they don't know the rule. The point is, we don't know.


I believe we all agree this is a bad ruling. However some of use seem to believe in following the authority that is placed over us. Others, seem to believe that they can disregard an official interp because it doesn't agree with their interpretation of the rulebook.

We all seem to have the same interpretation of the back court rule. However, that is not the case in all instances. That's why we have so much fun debating rules; because at times we have a different interp even after reading the same rules and case plays.

So Camron, if you and I have a different interpretation of a rule and there is an official interpretation that directly addresses our differences, can I disregard it becacuse it doesn't agree with my interp?

If we can assert our interpetation over the rules commitee then we are going down a slippery slope. Where will it end? I can simply say in any argument that your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct. I can then disregard any official interp that disagrees with my interp. I don't think we want to go there.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

You are leaving out a third possibility. It is also possible that the rules committee sees a hole in the rule or has changed the official interpretation. We don't know what goes on in these meetings. It could be as some suggest that they don't know the rule.

Actually, I do have some access to what goes on. For example, the recent change in FT mechanics was not even discussed at their meeting. After the meeting, the announcement of the changes was released and that change was a surprise to several members of the committee.

It wouldn't be a surprise if an interpretation made it in without full review.

Originally Posted by rwest

I find that hard to believe because it is not a hard rule to understand. I believe some are assuming a level of incompetence on the rules committee. I also believe that some are assuming that a single person wrote this interp. I for one would like to know a little more about the process before I start making these assumptions. It maybe that the rules committee voted on this interp and that it is the consensus of the committee.

That is what it should be but I have pretty good information that it isn't always working that way.

Originally Posted by rwest

I believe we all agree this is a bad ruling. However some of use seem to believe in following the authority that is placed over us. Others, seem to believe that they can disregard an official interp because it doesn't agree with their interpretation of the rulebook.

We all seem to have the same interpretation of the back court rule. However, that is not the case in all instances. That's why we have so much fun debating rules; because at times we have a different interp even after reading the same rules and case plays.

So Camron, if you and I have a different interpretation of a rule and there is an official interpretation that directly addresses our differences, can I disregard it because it doesn't agree with my interp?

The problem is that there are two sources on what the ruling should be...and they disagree.

If the rule book were changed to say it was a violation for the team in control of the ball to cause the ball to gain BC status and then be the first to touch the ball, I'd agree, with the interp, but it doesn't.

The rule as written isn't complicated. Last to touch BEFORE is not ambiguous. There is no other way to interpret BEFORE.

Originally Posted by rwest

If we can assert our interpretation over the rules committee then we are going down a slippery slope. Where will it end? I can simply say in any argument that your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct. I can then disregard any official interp that disagrees with my interp. I don't think we want to go there.

This is not the case of a ruling we don't like but the case of a ruling that doesn't agree with the rule that is behind it.

If they want to change the rule to say something like....

It is a violation for the team in control of the ball to cause the ball to gain BC status and then be the first to touch the ball.

then change the rule, don't do it by issuing a case play that says the rule means something different than it says.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, I do have some access to what goes on. For example, the recent change in FT mechanics was not even discussed at their meeting. After the meeting, the announcement of the changes was released and that change was a surprise to several members of the committee.

It wouldn't be a surprise if an interpretation made it in without full review.


That is what it should be but I have pretty good information that it isn't always working that way.


The problem is that there are two sources on what the ruling should be...and they disagree.

If the rule book were changed to say it was a violation for the team in control of the ball to cause the ball to gain BC status and then be the first to touch the ball, I'd agree, with the interp, but it doesn't.

The rule as written isn't complicated. Last to touch BEFORE is not ambiguous. There is no other way to interpret BEFORE.



This is not the case of a ruling we don't like but the case of a ruling that doesn't agree with the rule that is behind it.

If they want to change the rule to say something like....

It is a violation for the team in control of the ball to cause the ball to gain BC status and then be the first to touch the ball.

then change the rule, don't do it by issuing a case play that says the rule means something different than it says.

No it is the case of a ruling that disagrees with our interpretation of the rule.
Let's break it down.

1. Do you agree that two officials can differ on an interpretation of a given rule?

2. If so, then do you agree that an official interpretation from the rules committee that addresses these differences should be the interp adhered to? For example, if you have one interp that is supported by the rules committee and mine is not, shouldn't we follow your interp?

3. Do you agree that the National Federation of State High School Associations is the official source of interpretations?

4. Is there every a time when an official interp from the rules committee should be followed even when it differs with the rule book?

Answer the above questions in general, not in light of this ruling.

Thanks!
Randall

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

No it is the case of a ruling that disagrees with our interpretation of the rule.
Let's break it down.

1. Do you agree that two officials can differ on an interpretation of a given rule?

2. If so, then do you agree that an official interpretation from the rules committee that addresses these differences should be the interp adhered to? For example, if you have one interp that is supported by the rules committee and mine is not, shouldn't we follow your interp?

3. Do you agree that the National Federation of State High School Associations is the official source of interpretations?

4. Is there every a time when an official interp from the rules committee should be followed even when it differs with the rule book?

Answer the above questions in general, not in light of this ruling.

Thanks!
Randall

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes/No....they've had interps issued before where our state interpreters have instructed us to ingore it as it was incorrect.
4. Yes.

However, if the rule book says the sky is blue and the case book says it is purple....it doesn't make it purple.

This is not the case of an "interpretation". The language in the rulebook is unambiguous and has been well understood for decades and I don't think I've seen anyone even dispute what the rule says.

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which is in team control after it has been in the frontcourt, if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Whow was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the back court? Team A, violation. Otherwise no violation. I choose to rollow this rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

the recent change in FT mechanics

???

(Maybe I've had too much to drink, but I can't remember any recent change in FT mechanics)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes/No....they've had interps issued before where our state interpreters have instructed us to ingore it as it was incorrect.
4. Yes.

However, if the rule book says the sky is blue and the case book says it is purple....it doesn't make it purple.

This is not the case of an "interpretation". The language in the rulebook is unambiguous and has been well understood for decades and I don't think I've seen anyone even dispute what the rule says.

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which is in team control after it has been in the frontcourt, if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Whow was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the back court? Team A, violation. Otherwise no violation. I choose to rollow this rule.

So the state decided their interp was the correct one and the National Fed was wrong?

So if the President of your Association says the state is wrong he will tell you to ignore the state's ruling?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

So the state decided their interp was the correct one and the National Fed was wrong?

So if the President of your Association says the state is wrong he will tell you to ignore the state's ruling?

Yes. Ultimately, you work for the people who assign your games. If they wan't us to call it a certain way, you do it that way. And I think the NF ultimately came out with a correction on the issue....so yes, the NF does publish bogus info at times. Sometimes, they admit it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I can't remember any recent change in FT mechanics.

I can't think of any recent changes either.

Camron Rust: Can you elaborate? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

???

(Maybe I've had too much to drink, but I can't remember any recent change in FT mechanics)

Didn't the NFHS go to having the calling official stay tableside during free throws in a 2-whistle game? I think this was a change just last year.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Didn't the NFHS go to having the calling official stay tableside during free throws in a 2-whistle game? I think this was a change just last year.

I believe so. There was a big thread about it last year if I remember correctly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I believe so. There was a big thread about it last year if I remember correctly.

Yep, that's what I was talking about....I guess I should have said switching procedure, not the FT mechanics.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yep, that's what I was talking about....I guess I should have said switching procedure, not the FT mechanics.

Thanks. I'd be likely to forget that anyway.