Frontcourt/backcourt?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jay R

This to me is an easy question but some of our members disagreed at our meeting last night.

A5 passes the ball from his backcourt towards his frontcourt. The ball is deflected by B5 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt (or his own backcourt). The ball bounces once in Team A's frontcourt and goes back to
A5 who has both feet in his backcourt.

So Team A has a new 10 second count, correct? Some members thought because the ball hit the floor in the frontcourt before A5 picked it up, it caused an over and back violation?

According to the NFHS, this is a BC violation.

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 BktBallRef

According to the NFHS, this is a BC violation.

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)

Assuming it didn't hit the back court first before contacting the player. I wasn't thinking about that official interp when I read it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

I wasn't thinking about that official interp when I read it.

Continue NOT thinking about that official interp. There is no rules justification to call a violation in that situation.

Silly Monkeys!

[rwest]

I was thinking about this interp and while I don't like it per se, I now see some logic to their madness. Apply the rule as worded to the situation when A1 is dribbling in his frontcourt. He picks up his dribble and steps on the line. This is a backcourt violation. Why, because he caused the ball to have back court status. The main argument against the "dreaded" interp from my perspective is that two simulatenous events occurred (last to touch/first to touch). We all know that's not possible. However, there is precedent in the minds of the NFHS for this. The back court rule states that the offense has to be the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it in the back court. When I step on the line it is a backcourt violation because of two events occurring simultaneously.

I still don't like the interp, but there is precedent for the simultaneous events occurring, at least in the minds of the NFHS rules commitee.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rwest

I was thinking about this interp and while I don't like it per se, I now see some logic to their madness. Apply the rule as worded to the situation when A1 is dribbling in his frontcourt. He picks up his dribble and steps on the line. This is a backcourt violation. Why, because he caused the ball to have back court status. The main argument against the "dreaded" interp from my perspective is that two simulatenous events occurred (last to touch/first to touch). We all know that's not possible. However, there is precedent in the minds of the NFHS for this. The back court rule states that the offense has to be the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it in the back court. When I step on the line it is a backcourt violation because of two events occurring simultaneously.

I still don't like the interp, but there is precedent for the simultaneous events occurring, at least in the minds of the NFHS rules commitee.

And there are other examples where all 4 elements aren't met yet you have a valid b/c violation.

I'm one of those in the minority who agreed with the interp.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I was thinking about this interp and while I don't like it per se, I now see some logic to their madness. Apply the rule as worded to the situation when A1 is dribbling in his frontcourt. He picks up his dribble and steps on the line. This is a backcourt violation. Why, because he caused the ball to have back court status. The main argument against the "dreaded" interp from my perspective is that two simulatenous events occurred (last to touch/first to touch). We all know that's not possible. However, there is precedent in the minds of the NFHS for this. The back court rule states that the offense has to be the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it in the back court. When I step on the line it is a backcourt violation because of two events occurring simultaneously.

I still don't like the interp, but there is precedent for the simultaneous events occurring, at least in the minds of the NFHS rules commitee.

No, the rule states the offense has to be the last to touch "before" the ball gains BC status, and the first to touch the ball "after" it gains BC status. The location of the touch is not relevant. The timing, however, is.
It's impossible for a single event to occur both before and after a separate event. "Causing the ball to gain BC status" is not a violation.
This very play is one of the reasons I find the interp to be stupid.

Change it just a bit. A1 standing in the BC near the division line. Throws towards A2, also in the BC. B1, standing in the FC, reaches across the division line and tips the pass, but does not significantly alter the trajectory, allowing A2 to catch the ball easily.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, the rule states the offense has to be the last to touch "before" the ball gains BC status, and the first to touch the ball "after" it gains BC status. The location of the touch is not relevant. The timing, however, is.
It's impossible for a single event to occur both before and after a separate event. "Causing the ball to gain BC status" is not a violation.
This very play is one of the reasons I find the interp to be stupid.

Change it just a bit. A1 standing in the BC near the division line. Throws towards A2, also in the BC. B1, standing in the FC, reaches across the division line and tips the pass, but does not significantly alter the trajectory, allowing A2 to catch the ball easily.

However, when A1 holding the ball in the front court, pivots and steps on the line we have two events happening simultaneously from a rules perspective. The offense was the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it after the ball had obtained back court status, which occurred at the exact same time as his foot touching the line.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

However, when A1 holding the ball in the front court, pivots and steps on the line we have two events happening simultaneously from a rules perspective. The offense was the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it after the ball had obtained back court status, which occurred at the exact same time as his foot touching the line.

This is a backcourt violation. But, the two events (frontcourt touch/backcourt touch) clearly did not happen simultaneously, and this in no way relates to the OP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

However, when A1 holding the ball in the front court, pivots and steps on the line we have two events happening simultaneously from a rules perspective. The offense was the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it after the ball had obtained back court status, which occurred at the exact same time as his foot touching the line.

As Camron points out, your player has the ball throughout the entire time; before the ball gains BC status and after.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And there are other examples where all 4 elements aren't met yet you have a valid b/c violation.

Such as?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Such as?

Is this a b/c violation?

A1 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt near the division line. A1 dribbles off his leg, the ball bounces off B2 leg in A's frontcourt and comes to rest on the floor in A's frontcourt. A1, standing in his backcourt, reaches across the division line and secures the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Is this a b/c violation?

A1 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt near the division line. A1 dribbles off his leg, the ball bounces off B2 leg in A's frontcourt and comes to rest on the floor in A's frontcourt. A1, standing in his backcourt, reaches across the division line and secures the ball.

Based on the rule? No. A is not the last player to touch the ball prior to it gaining BC status. The instant A1 touches the ball, it gains BC status. Last to touch before that was B2.
For the record, I think the ruling would be the same if the ball were bouncing back from the FC.

How about this one? Same principal, only slightly different action:
A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1, guarding A1 and standing completely in the FC. B1 reaches and slaps at the ball, knocking it into A1's leg. Violation?

According to the rule, no. According to the interp, yes. Your call?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

I was thinking about this interp and while I don't like it per se, I now see some logic to their madness. Apply the rule as worded to the situation when A1 is dribbling in his frontcourt. He picks up his dribble and steps on the line. This is a backcourt violation. Why, because he caused the ball to have back court status.

That point might have some merit if causing the ball to have backcourt status was against the rules....but it is not.

Originally Posted by rwest

The main argument against the "dreaded" interp from my perspective is that two simulatenous events occurred (last to touch/first to touch). We all know that's not possible. However, there is precedent in the minds of the NFHS for this. The back court rule states that the offense has to be the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it in the back court.

Again, nice point but incorrect wording. For there to be a violation, there is no requirement that the team ever touch it in the frontcourt....just that they are the last to have touched the ball when the ball was last in the frontcourt...BEFORE it went to the backcourt. Likewise, they need not touch the ball in the backcourt...only that they are the first to touch the ball AFTER the ball returned to the backcourt.

Originally Posted by rwest

When I step on the line it is a backcourt violation because of two events occurring simultaneously.

They are not simultaneous. The player who is holding the ball was last in the frontcourt the instant BEFORE stepping on the line. The instant they step on the line, they are in the backcourt. AFTER that instant, they are the first to touch the ball (since they're holding it). That makes it a violation.

Originally Posted by rwest

I still don't like the interp, but there is precedent for the simultaneous events occurring, at least in the minds of the NFHS rules commitee.