Back Court vs. Front Court.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

That's what I meant to say.

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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 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.

[M&M Guy]

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

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Use the same scenario with the ball going OOB. If A3 is standing OOB and touches the ball befoe it hits OOB, A3 has committed the violation.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.