Back Court vs. Front Court.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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

[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.