Working with a Veteran

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good responses thus far.

What if your rookie trail and you witnessed the following: A-1 loses control in the frontcourt. B-2 taps the ball into the air over the backcourt. A-1 runs to the backcourt and touches the ball before it hits the floor. Your partner offers no whistle, thinking no violation took place.

Now, mbyron and JRut offer solid reasons why they'd leave such things alone, and I doubt this scenario would change their minds. Cam also offers a good reason to blow the whistle.

Anyone else? Does this new scenario change things?

Camron stated he's only calling this if the ball came from his primary. The odds of your scenario happening in the lead's primary are slim to none.

Secondly (I know, there was not "first of all"), your scenario is not a violation by rule; in spite of the interp.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Secondly (I know, there was not "first of all"), your scenario is not a violation by rule; in spite of the interp.

Correct, and thankfully so.

I just came from our IAABO board's fall conference, and one of the things mentioned was a change in interpretation on this very play. Long story short, it's not a violation. A few of us at the meeting expressed pleasure about the change, as last year's didn't make sense to us.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Correct, and thankfully so.

I just came from our IAABO board's fall conference, and one of the things mentioned was a change in interpretation on this very play. Long story short, it's not a violation. A few of us at the meeting expressed pleasure about the change, as last year's didn't make sense to us.

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I just came from our IAABO board's fall conference, and one of the things mentioned was a change in interpretation on this very play. Long story short, it's not a violation. A few of us at the meeting expressed pleasure about the change, as last year's didn't make sense to us.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

I'm so confused. Are we talking about this:

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)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm so confused. Are we talking about this:

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)

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

I think according to the NFHS "interpretation" this is still a backcourt violation...not that it's correct according to that rule book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

Methinks that unless there was something definitive issued from the NFHS last year that none of us are aware of, your board's interpreter was wrong in making the assumption that the interpretation had changed(unfortunately). We all pretty-much agree that it should be a legal play by rule, but until the FED withdraws that stoopid interpretation, we're either still stuck with it or are ignoring it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

Your board's interpreter seems to be the only one who was given this change.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

If, the ball in flight has the same relationship to frontcourt and backcourt, or inbounds or out of bounds, as when it last touched a person or the floor [#9 Basketball Rules Fundamentals], and B-3 touched the ball in the frontcourt and it has not hit the floor in the backcourt before A-1 touches it in the backcourt, then A-1 has caused it to gain backcourt status. I understand that it seems to be a bad ruling with respect to what has happened. But, by looking at the Rules Fundamentals, it is the correct one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

If, the ball in flight has the same relationship to frontcourt and backcourt, or inbounds or out of bounds, as when it last touched a person or the floor [#9 Basketball Rules Fundamentals], and B-3 touched the ball in the frontcourt and it has not hit the floor in the backcourt before A-1 touches it in the backcourt, then A-1 has caused it to gain backcourt status. I understand that it seems to be a bad ruling with respect to what has happened. But, by looking at the Rules Fundamentals, it is the correct one.

The problem is, "causing the ball to gain backcourt status" is not the violation. The violation is for having players on the team in control be the last to touch before it gained BC status and the first to touch after it gained BC status. The fundamental isn't applicable to this situation.

The situation that illustrates the absurdity of the ruling:
A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

I was wondering the same thing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was wondering the same thing.

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, of which there are many. Sometimes we, in IAABO, can be real mavericks. At the next IAABO spring meeting, we'll be able to see Russia from our hotel.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, or which there are many. Sometimes we, in IAABO, can be real mavericks. At the next IAABO spring meeting, we'll be able to see Russia from our hotel.

So it's going to be held at Tina Fey's house? Or in Moscow?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, or which there are many.

If IAABO alone issued it, it most definitely will not apply to any non-IAABO associations, areas, states, etc.

What we need to know is whether IAABO issued it or got it from a legitimate NFHS source.

[Jurassic Referee]

Interesting. IAABO is recognized as the state governing body in a few states. As such, they can't make rules, but they can decide what rules they might comply with or modify. I'm wondering whether they consider this a non-compliance or a modification. Or maybe just as a completely wrong interpretation that was never backed by rule and should never had been issued in the first place, as most of us viewed it.