Back Court vs. Front Court.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Can you link to that thread? I can't imagine it approached 98 vs 2, and that is even including the one-and-only Old School

2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.

By unilateral decree...

Situation 10 still bothers me.

Any thoughts on this play?

New interps Sitch # 10

How's that for a start?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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)

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)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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)

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.

[Upward ref]

I guess my understanding hinges on team control for this sit.,
1) even though b deflected the pass into the backcourt,team control is still with a ?
2) If the ball hits the floor (in the backcourt after b's deflection) then b caused backcourt status?
3) if the ball doesnt hit the floor (in the backcourt after b's deflection) and a is the first to touch, b didnt cause the backcourt status ??
4) didnt b's deflection make him the last to touch ?
is 4-12-4 the main emphasis ?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

I guess my understanding hinges on team control for this sit.,
1) even though b deflected the pass into the backcourt,team control is still with a ?
2) If the ball hits the floor (in the backcourt after b's deflection) then b caused backcourt status?
3) if the ball doesnt hit the floor (in the backcourt after b's deflection) and a is the first to touch, b didnt cause the backcourt status ??
4) didnt b's deflection make him the last to touch ?
is 4-12-4 the main emphasis ?

1) Yes
2) yes
3) That's the issue -- can one player simultaneously be the last to touch and the first to touch. Most here would say no; NFHS has said yes

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) Yes
2) yes
3) That's the issue -- can one player simultaneously be the last to touch and the first to touch. Most here would say no; NFHS has said yes

Just to clarify, the question is really....

Can one player simultaneously be the last to touch before X and the first to touch after X where X is the moment the ball gained backcourt status.

The answer by any rational thought process is no. It is simply not physically possible in this universe.

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) Yes
2) yes
3) That's the issue -- can one player simultaneously be the last to touch and the first to touch. Most here would say no; NFHS has said yes

re: 2) ok then, B was the last to touch , B caused backcourt status not A1 or A2. end of discussion ! OR ;

I dont think I want to try and keep up with you big dogs on the merits of the ruling,
4 )but as a newbie I need to understand if B's tipp has no bearing because of A still having team control ? if not ,then it's completely different than a tip out of bounds and oob discussions/comparisons just muddy up the waters for me.
5) This situation wouldn't change for an interrupted dribble either since team control is maintained during an int. dribble?
6) on the signifigance of the ball hitting the floor ( still in sit. 10 interp) : if the ball hits the floor after the tip by B , A 1 or A2 can recover and not violate ? Whats the difference if it hits the floor before A's recovery or not ??
7) does A's recovery make any difference : if he / she is in the air from f/c status ,recovers a)before it bounces, or b) after it bounces ,following B's tip and lands in the backcourt ?
It's a lot of stuff for a simple deflection !!!