Frontcourt/backcourt?

[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?

[rwest]

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?

You have all the elements you need to give the ball front court status: team control and the ball touching someone in the front court or the floor in the front court. Once the ball was deflected by B5 the ball had obtained front court status. It didn't need to touch the floor. The defense was the last to touch the ball in the front court. Therefore, one of the elements for a back court violation is missing. This is not a back court violation and a new 10 second court should be started.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by rwest

The defense was the last to touch the ball in the front court.

Unless A5 catches the ball before it touches the floor in the backcourt.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Unless A5 catches the ball before it touches the floor in the backcourt.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

We are not going to debate that again! Better not let Snaqwells hear you say that!

[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.

[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?

[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.