Back Court vs. Front Court.
 

This in an age-old question for me. At what point is the ball considered in the front court? Here's a scenario:

Player A dribbles the ball from the back court towards the front court. At the halfway line, he has one foot in the back court and the other in the front court and has stopped. At this point, is the ball considered in the FC or the BC?

OK, let's complicate things further. With one foot in each the BC and the FC, he lifts his BC-side foot. Is he considered in the FC now?

Am I complicating this situation by talking about foot location? Is this supposed to be determined by the ball location instead? In this case, must the whole of the ball cross the halway to be in the front court?

4-35, Player Location answers this question...
 

...for now on, I will search other threads before posting questions. 4-35 clearly explains this. Maybe I should just take the time and memorize each of the Rule 4 definitions. Gee, my fellow referees have only been telling me this for years.

all 3 points must have touched in FC to have FC status.

Kudos to you for continuing your search and diving into the rule book to find the info for yourself. That's the best way to go!

Magnuson, welcome to the Forum. Glad you found us here. There are a lot of pretty knowledgeable people here, so be sure to check in with questions throughout the season.

As to your particular question, it's answered very precisely in NFHS Rule 4-4. This defines "Ball Location". Essentially, the rule states that

1) if the ball is touching the floor in the backcourt, or a person who is touching the backcourt, then the ball is in the backcourt;

2) if the ball is touching the floor in the frontcourt or a person who is NOT touching the backcourt, then the ball is in the frontcourt;

3) if the ball is in flight, then its location is wherever it last touched the floor, backboard, basket, or a person.

Your "complicated" case is actually pretty straightforward. If you're dribbling, the ball is only in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler have touched in the frontcourt.

I see that you've sort of answered your own question, which is actually the best way to learn the rules. But I will agree with "everyone" who has told you to know Rule 4 inside and out. If you know how things are defined, it makes it much easier to break down a difficult question.

Just to be clear, this only applies to a dribbler; not to a person holding the ball.

I usually answer this question in terms of the player rather than the ball. People seem to have trouble distinguishing 2 cases:

1. Dribbler: the ball and both feet must be in the FC; until then, the ball has BC status.

2. Non-dribbler with ball: something in the FC and nothing in the BC; until then, the ball has BC status.

The only other case is a ball in flight, which has the status of the last thing it touched.

So, that being said... A1 in the f/c passes to A3 also in the f/c, B3 deflects the ball TOWARD the b/c. Before the ball touches the floor in the b/c A3 recovers in the b/c.
Ruling?

No I didnt start this 1 again! :D

Backcourt violation on A3 according to the Fed.

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.

Oh I concur with ya!
I just remember the board being split 50/50 on the this matter a while back.

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:)

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tion-10-a.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...al-decree.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...others-me.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ghts-play.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...itch-10-a.html

How's that for a start? :D

Scrapper, thanks for clarifying. All of my fc/bc questions from coaches involved dribblers so I assumed (my mistake).

Misty Watercolor Memories Of The Way We Were.
 

It didn't always use to be that way on a throwin.

I thought this was the ruling we all thought was wrong.
B3 is the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt, so it can't be a violation.

Hmmmm ~ When does the ball obtain b/c status? When it merely crosses the division line in the air OR when it touches the floor or a player in the b/c?

I'm in the Situation 10 interp camp :D

Agreed.

Apples/Oranges. Causing the ball to obtain BC status is not the violation. The Situation 10 interp directly contradicts both the rule as it written as as it has been called forever.

Right last to touch in f/c & first to touch in the b/c is the violation. So again, we know who deflected toward the b/c but when when did the ball really gain b/c status? And who caused that?

I understand your position, but it works for me & until the guys I work for say otherwise...

What our "employers" say is really irrelevant to the discussion of whether it "should" be a violation.
The rule says team A must be the last to touch "before" the ball gains BC status and the first to touch the ball "after" it has gained BC status.
Events:
A: Team A is last to touch
B: Ball gains BC status
C: Team A is first to touch

How is it possible for a single act (A3 touching the ball) to occur both "before" and "after" any single event?

Agree. And unfortunately(or fortunately), everybody that I know is ignoring that particular interp as being...well...completely idiotic.

Rules Rulz!(most of the time)

Sitch:
A1, in the BC, pass the ball towards A2 along the division line.
B3, standing completely in the FC reaches and tips the pass.
A2, standing in the BC, grabs the ball before it touches the floor in the BC.

The logic of the ruling leads to the conclusion that a violation should be called.
The logic of the rule, however, does not.

It's a single act that somehow, according to 10, has a separate event happen in between it. :)

Personally, I'd rather let play continue anyway, and as long as I have the rule to back me up... ya know? :D

True! Perhaps I'll re-think my position on this before this season kicks off -errrr- tips off.

It's Simple Einsteinian Physics ...
 

I'm sure that the NFHS took into consideration a possible warp in the space time continuum. After that they all got together and performed brain surgery, followed by a quick discovery involving some type of rocket science.

Sorry Coach ...
 

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.

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)

9.8 Situation D ...
 

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)

Actually No
 

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.

team control
 

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

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.

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 !!!:confused:

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)

I've been biting my tongue, but can't any longer....
 

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.

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.

True, however
 

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

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.


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.

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.

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!

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

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.

Thanks :)

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.

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."

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.

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...)

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

That's what I meant to say.

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

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.

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.

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?

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? :confused:

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. :)

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.

+1

You can't ignore an official interp
 

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.

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.

Then how....
 

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.

???

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

So the state
 

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.

What The ...
 

I can't think of any recent changes either.

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

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.

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.