Back Court vs. Front Court.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

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 !!!

4 Requirements, all must be met:

1) Team Control
2) Ball Reaches Front Court
3) A last to touoch before ball goes to BC
4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC

The case play says both 3 and 4 are met at once by A's catching the ball. They clearly are not both met when the ball touches the floor in the BC after B's tip.

The rest of your questions can be answered by following those 4 Requirements (and allowing for the exceptions of jump ball, thorw-in, defensive player)

[rwest]

At the beginning of each set of offiicial interpretations is the following...


Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

So, this situation must have been presented to the rules committee. They had to have discussed it and voted on the correct ruling. It is hard for me to believe that out of the 13 members of the rules committee someone didn't mention many of the things mentioned in this thread. It is also hard for me to believe that the rule committee does not understand the simply rules regarding backcourt violation.

So for those on this board who suggest we should ignore this official interpretation, my question is based on what? On what the rule book says? No. It is actually based on your interpretation of the rule book. There is no case play that addresses this exact situation. There is an official interpretation that does, yet we are to ignore it because it doesn't make sense to us? If you ignore this one because it doesn't agree with your interpretation then what prevents you from ignoring other interpretations? You are setting a precedence and you are weaking any future argument you have. If you disregard this ruling than in the future you can not use an official interpretation to support your view on another debate.


We can't pick and chose which official interpretations we will enforce. The rule committee members are not physicists. There are other rules that don't make sense to me but we have to enforce them as is. For example, no one can convince me that slapping the back board while the ball is on the rim can not iterfere with the ball going in. I know it is not by rule basket interference but by physics it can be. However, I call it the way the rule committee wants me to.

Oh, and for the record. I agree with many of you on this interpretation. I agree it is bad in that it doesnt' make sense. However, this is an official interpretation. I disagree with those who say to disregard it because it doesn't agree with their interpreation of the rule book. The committee put out the interpretation to address this issue. If you disregard this interp then I can disregard another interp and not be ridiculed for it.

Sometimes the rule book is wrong and the official interp is correct. I know I've made this agrument before and someone said then they should change the rule book the following year. Well, that would be nice but it doesnt' always happen.

As an example from another sport I call: softball. For years the ASA rule book was written that would prohibit the batter from becoming a batter-runner and advancing to 1st base on a drop third strike under a certain set of circumstances. Yet by official interp the batter was allowed to advance under these same set of circumstantces. I can't rember the exact wording, but the rule book was wrong. The official interpretation was to allow them to advance. So to use the arguments some have made here, I should have disallowed the batter from advancing because the official interpretation didn't match the rule book.

Trust the process!


Disclaimer: No offense to anyone was intended by this post.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rwest

So, this situation must have been presented to the rules committee. They had to have discussed it and voted on the correct ruling. It is hard for me to believe that out of the 13 members of the rules committee someone didn't mention many of the things mentioned in this thread. It is also hard for me to believe that the rule committee does not understand the simply rules regarding backcourt violation.

Of the 13 members on the rules committee...

How many officated a HS basketball game last year?

How many frequent Internet discussion forums such as this to become more informed on the rules?

How many read the rule book and case book through last year?

How many of them know the 4 criteria Bob listed above?

I agree that while I may not like the interp, I do call it that way. But being on the rules committee doesn't mean you're above making a mistake.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Of the 13 members on the rules committee...

How many officated a HS basketball game last year?

I don't know, neither do you. How many of them officiate at the college level? I know one that does.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How many frequent Internet discussion forums such as this to become more informed on the rules?

I don't know, neither do you. But you are making some assumptions here. One, that they need to come to these forums and two that these forums are more knowledgable then they are.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How many read the rule book and case book through last year?

Again, neither of us knows the answer to this. However, I would assume that they have proof readers and that they do their due deligence.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How many of them know the 4 criteria Bob listed above?

Oh, I imagine more than you would like to give credit for. You seem to be assuming a level of incompetence from the rules committee.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I agree that while I may not like the interp, I do call it that way. But being on the rules committee doesn't mean you're above making a mistake.

No, neither does writing on this forum mean that we know more than they do.

I agree that they are not above making a mistake. Anymore than you or I or anyone else on this forum. However, how do you know they made a mistake? Based on the rule book. However, how do you know that the rule book isn't wrong? How do you know that they didn't orginally intend for the rule book to be written in such a way that the rule book would be in agreement with the interp? You don't, just like I don't know that they didn't make a mistake. My point is that it is an official ruling from the rules committee. We can't assume they didn't take all of the rules in to consideration when writing it. We have to trust them that they did their job. If we start questioning everything they publish, we have anarchy.

Trust the process!

[BktBallRef]

Thanks. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know.

That's exactly what I thought.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Thanks. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know.

That's exactly what I thought.

Neither do you

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rwest

Neither do you

Yes but I'm not the one backing the ruling and the committee, am I?

I know the people who are posting their disagreement, I know what the rule book says, I know that we break down every situation and discuss it thoroughly.

"However, how do you know that the rule book isn't wrong?" What a stupid question. The rule book is neither right or wrong, it's the rule book, the standard. Only rulings or interps can be wrong when compared with the rule book. What the committee's "intent" is when they write a rule has no bearing if they then issue a ruling that's in complete opposition to the rule they wrote. Such is this case here.

"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." Can you read that boldface print? It's black and white. In the interp, the opponent last touched the ball in the FC. And that's not new, it's been in the book for years.

Tell ya what, why don't you contact your favorite member of the committee and ask him what are the four things that must happen for a BC violation to occur? Ask him how many HS games he work last year? Ask him when was the last time he read through the rule book and case book. Then you can answer my questions with some knowledge.

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

4 Requirements, all must be met:

1) Team Control
2) Ball Reaches Front Court
3) A last to touoch before ball goes to BC4) A first to touch after ball goes to BC

The case play says both 3 and 4 are met at once by A's catching the ball. They clearly are not both met when the ball touches the floor in the BC after B's tip.

The rest of your questions can be answered by following those 4 Requirements (and allowing for the exceptions of jump ball, thorw-in, defensive player)

ok, let me try again. was'nt B last to touch in FC ?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

ok, let me try again. was'nt B last to touch in FC ?

yes by logic but the rule committee sees it otherwise. they see A being the last to touch in the FC and the first to touch in the BC all at the same time.

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

yes by logic but the rule committee sees it otherwise. they see A being the last to touch in the FC and the first to touch in the BC all at the same time.

Thanks

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

ok, let me try again. was'nt B last to touch in FC ?

Yes, they were. If A is in his BC, then he can't possibly be in his FC, touching the ball, can he?

If the rule said "A in his BC touches a ball with FC status" then we have a different story. But that's not what the rule states. It says "touched by the ball in his FC."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

ok, let me try again. was'nt B last to touch in FC ?

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.

[Terrance "TJ"]

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...)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.