Working with a Veteran

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

So, what happens next? A1 has player control and a 10 second count is still continuing. Team control has not changed. And they have not caused the ball to gain FC status. I don't like the ruling in the play being discussed, but I cannot set the rule aside because I do not like it.

What happens next? By rule, you have a new 10 second count. The ball has not continuously been in the backcourt, since B1's touch gives it FC status. Since team control never ends, the BC count will start as soon as the ball regains BC status. This play is fundamentally identical to the interp.

Team A doesn't have to cause the ball to gain FC status, that's not part of the rule any more than causing it to gain BC status is part of it.

We can't add "cause" to the rule in order to make the interp correct.

[26 Year Gap]

2007-08 NFHS Interpretations

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)

Argue with this guy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

2007-08 NFHS Interpretations

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)

Argue with this guy.

We've been arguing with him since the interp came out. The interp specifically mentions "caused the ball to have backcourt status," which is definitively not in the rule. Again, this interp leads one to have to call a violation in the play I presented earlier; which is absurd.

It also does not fit the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We've been arguing with him since the interp came out. The interp specifically mentions "caused the ball to have backcourt status," which is definitively not in the rule. Again, this interp leads one to have to call a violation in the play I presented earlier; which is absurd.

It also does not fit the rule.

Also....

If causing the ball to have BC status were the violation, we'd blow the whistle the moment the ball bounces in the backcourt even if it was not yet touched. But it is not and we don't.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We can't add "cause" to the rule in order to make the interp correct.

"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."

They're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of what causes the ball to have BC status. That seems OK to me.

I even think that the "simultaneity" objection lacks merit: if event A causes event B, then A has to happen before B. When a player's touch causes the ball to have BC status, the player was the last to touch before the ball "went" to the BC.

[Hint: I'm playing devil's advocate here. Can you locate the fallacy?]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

"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."

They're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of what causes the ball to have BC status. That seems OK to me.

I even think that the "simultaneity" objection lacks merit: if event A causes event B, then A has to happen before B. When a player's touch causes the ball to have BC status, the player was the last to touch before the ball "went" to the BC.

[Hint: I'm playing devil's advocate here. Can you locate the fallacy?]

"Cause" isn't my biggest problem; but it's not in the rule.

The fallacy in your point? Use of the word "cause" where it's not warranted. A ball gains backcourt status at a precise moment in time. A separate event cannot happen both before and after that moment.

So, let me ask you, would you call a violation on the play I submitted?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"Cause" isn't my biggest problem; but it's not in the rule.

The fallacy in your point? Use of the word "cause" where it's not warranted. A ball gains backcourt status at a precise moment in time. A separate event cannot happen both before and after that moment.

So, let me ask you, would you call a violation on the play I submitted?

You mean this play:
"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."

No, I wouldn't. I don't think A1 touched it before it gained BC status.

But I'm not sure your reasoning stands up: if we're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of causation, then the interp implies two events -- cause and effect -- which cannot be simultaneous.

True, 9-9-1 doesn't employ the word "cause," but what else could "went to the backcourt" mean?

[Still advocating...]

[26 Year Gap]

When does the ball gain BC status? When it touches the floor or any person that is on the floor in BC? Who is the first to touch it? Both things occur simultaneously. The ball gained BC status when touched by A1 who was standing in the BC. And A1 was the first to touch the ball once it has gained BC status. B may have been the last to touch it, but it did not change team control when he touched it.

4-4-3 A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player on the court. [In this case, B was in the FC and touched it].
4-4-4 A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location. [In this case, A's touch of the ball in BC gave it BC status. Not B's touch in the FC. A was the first to touch it after it was given BC status by virtue of A's touch. They occurred at the SAME TIME.]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

When does the ball gain BC status? When it touches the floor or any person that is on the floor in BC? Who is the first to touch it? Both things occur simultaneously. The ball gained BC status when touched by A1 who was standing in the BC. And A1 was the first to touch the ball once it has gained BC status. B may have been the last to touch it, but it did not change team control when he touched it.

4-4-3 A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player on the court. [In this case, B was in the FC and touched it].
4-4-4 A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location. [In this case, A's touch of the ball in BC gave it BC status. Not B's touch in the FC. A was the first to touch it after it was given BC status by virtue of A's touch. They occurred at the SAME TIME.]

And B was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

When does the ball gain BC status? When it touches the floor or any person that is on the floor in BC?

Correct...but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Who is the first to touch it? Both things occur simultaneously. The ball gained BC status when touched by A1 who was standing in the BC. And A1 was the first to touch the ball once it has gained BC status.

Correct.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

B may have been the last to touch it, but it did not change team control when he touched it.

Correct...but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

4-4-3 A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player on the court. [In this case, B was in the FC and touched it].
4-4-4 A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location. [In this case, A's touch of the ball in BC gave it BC status. Not B's touch in the FC. A was the first to touch it after it was given BC status by virtue of A's touch. They occurred at the SAME TIME.]

Correct...but irrelevant.

The real question is who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained BC status. If it was A, violation. If it was B, no violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You mean this play:
"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."

No, I wouldn't. I don't think A1 touched it before it gained BC status.

By your reasoning regarding causation, he must have, as he causes the ball to gain BC status when it hits his leg. Fundamentally, it's identical to the interp.

Originally Posted by mbyron

But I'm not sure your reasoning stands up: if we're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of causation, then the interp implies two events -- cause and effect -- which cannot be simultaneous.

True, 9-9-1 doesn't employ the word "cause," but what else could "went to the backcourt" mean?

What else could it mean? Exactly what it says; perhaps worded slightly differently, "gained backcourt status."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

By your reasoning regarding causation, he must have, as he causes the ball to gain BC status when it hits his leg. Fundamentally, it's identical to the interp.


What else could it mean? Exactly what it says; perhaps worded slightly differently, "gained backcourt status."

OK, I'll come clean: the interp is flawed in supposing that the touching by A and the ball gaining backcourt status are distinct events. If they were distinct, it might make sense to say that the former causes the latter. But they're not.

Without getting too metaphysical, the touch by A does not cause the ball to go to the BC, it constitutes the ball gaining BC status. The touch just is the ball gaining BC status. I think this is the idea people are reaching for when they say that the "two" events are "simultaneous." I would like to tell the committee that you don't have two events here at all: just one event, with two ways of describing it. One description is about touching, and one is about the status of the ball.

That's why "cause" is inappropriate for the interpretation of "went to the backcourt." Without two distinct events, you cannot possibly have cause and effect.

And so when A is in the BC and touches the ball, A is NOT the last to touch before the ball went to the BC. No violation.

[26 Year Gap]

A1 releases the ball on a throw-in attempt. B-1 a. deflects ball to A1 who catches it or touches the ball while still standing out of bounds. b. touches the ball while standing out of bounds after B-1's deflected ball hits the floor. c. deflected ball hits the official who is standing out of bounds and then is touched by A1 who is still standing out of bounds.

When is the ball out of bounds? Whose violation is it? Will this horse ever live again?