Backcourt?

[APG]

2007-2008 NFHS Basketball Rules 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)

This is the interpretation that would make your play a backcourt violation according to the NFHS interpretation. If you search, you'll find a long thread about the merits of this silly (IMO), interpretation. There was a strong majority if I remember correctly that were against this interpretation as it is conflicting with the written rule.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

2007-2008 NFHS Basketball Rules 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)

This is the interpretation that would make your play a backcourt violation according to the NFHS interpretation. If you search, you'll find a long thread about the merits of this silly (IMO), interpretation. There was a strong majority if I remember correctly that were against this interpretation as it is conflicting with the written rule.

These old interps are nice to have around. Even the silly ones.

[SamIAm]

The root of the forum disagreement with the interp is that the last to touch and first to touch happen at the sametime. The ball cannot have both FC and BC status at the same time.

[APG]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

The root of the forum disagreement with the interp is that the last to touch and first to touch happen at the sametime. The ball cannot have both FC and BC status at the same time.

That and the rationale for the ruling isn't even correct. It's not a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status. If it was, it would be a violation the instant the ball gains backcourt status.

[Terrapins Fan]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That and the rationale for the ruling isn't even correct. It's not a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status. If it was, it would be a violation the instant the ball gains backcourt status.

And it gained BC status when A1 touched it,correct?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

And it gained BC status when A1 touched it,correct?

Sure, it gained backcourt status when A1 touched it...and?

[Terrapins Fan]

Making sure.

Thanks all!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

The root of the forum disagreement with the interp is that the last to touch and first to touch happen at the sametime. The ball cannot have both FC and BC status at the same time.

Almost...

For it to be a violation, the rule requires that team A be the last to touch BEFORE and first to touch AFTER the ball gains BC status. One touch can't, in any way, shape, or form, happen both before and after a specific event (gaining BC status).

[Rob1968]

It seems that the rationale is similar to a player OOB being the player who causes the ball to be OOB, when he/she touches or is touched by a live ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

It seems that the rationale is similar to a player OOB being the player who causes the ball to be OOB, when he/she touches or is touched by a live ball.

Yes, it is similar, but not valid in this case. Causing the ball to go OOB is a violation, causing it to go into backcourt is not.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

It seems that the rationale is similar to a player OOB being the player who causes the ball to be OOB, when he/she touches or is touched by a live ball.

Again, it's not a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status. If it was, you would have a violation just for throwing the ball into the backcourt, and we all know that isn't a violation. It IS a violation to cause the ball to be out of bounds.

[Terrapins Fan]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Again, it's not a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status. If it was, you would have a violation just for throwing the ball into the backcourt, and we all know that isn't a violation. It IS a violation to cause the ball to be out of bounds.

I believe that is an exception and the ball does not have FC status when it is OOB for a throw in.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Almost...

For it to be a violation, the rule requires that team A be the last to touch BEFORE and first to touch AFTER the ball gains BC status. One touch can't, in any way, shape, or form, happen both before and after a specific event (gaining BC status).

Tell that to the rule makers.

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)

The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the must have FC status for the last to touch to apply. The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the ball must have BC status for the first to touch to apply.

Per the rule makers, the ball can have both FC and BC status at the same time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Tell that to the rule makers.

...

The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the must have FC status for the last to touch to apply. The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the ball must have BC status for the first to touch to apply.

Per the rule makers, the ball can have both FC and BC status at the same time.

There are so many things wrong that that interpretation that it just doesn't make any sense. It is generally regarded as incorrect.

Read the actual RULE...it says the opposite. You left out the same two words that the person who wrote that "SITUATION" left out: "before" and "after". Leaving out those words in the process of making a ruling completely changes the meaning of the rule.

In math terms "before" is equivalent to less than a point in time and "after" is equivalent to greater than a point in time....or flip them if you want to talk with respect to the game clock. The point at which the ball gains BC status it time0. For there to be a violation, the rule, translated to an equation requires that "Last Touch" < "BC Status Gained" < "First Touch". Since a number (point in time) can not be both greater than 0 and less than 0, the last touch and the first touch can't be the same touch. But the interpretation allows for a violation when "Last Touch" <= "BC Status Gained" <= "First Touch" where the last touch can be the same as the first touch. Those two equations are not the same.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are so many things wrong that that interpretation that it just doesn't make any sense. It is generally regarded as incorrect.

Read the actual RULE...it says the opposite. You left the same two words that the person who wrote that "SITUATION" left out: "before" and "after". Leaving out those words in the process of making a ruling completely changes the meaning of the rule.

In math terms "before" is equivalent to less than a point in time and "after" is equivalent to greater than a point in time....or flip them if you want to talk with respect to the game clock. The point at which the ball gains BC status it time0. For there to be a violation, the rule, translated to an equation requires that "Last Touch" < "BC Status Gained" < "First Touch". Since a number (point in time) can not be both greater than 0 and less than 0, the last touch and the first touch can't be the same touch. But the interpretation allows for a violation when "Last Touch" <= "BC Status Gained" <= "First Touch" where the last touch can be the same as the first touch. Those two equations are not the same.

If only you had a Telestrator.