Backcourt?

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

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

APG isn't talking about a throw-in. He's talking about the ball going into the backcourt after being in team control in the frontcourt.

That's why that NFHS ruling was horsesh!t.

[Rob1968]

I recognize that causing the ball to go into backcourt is not the violation. As discussed in previous threads, in the OP, if the ball had touched the floor in the backcourt, before A1 touched it, then the covering official would consider that
B1 had caused the ball to be in A's backcourt. And a subsequent touch by A1 would not result in a violation.
It seems to me that both the location status of A1 and the location status of the ball are taken into consideration in the Fed's interpretation. For example, if A1 jumps from A's frontcourt, and while in the air, over A's backcourt, were to touch the ball before it touches A's backcourt, there would be no violation if A1 batted or threw the ball back to A's frontcourt. This would be similar to a player leaping in the air to save a ball which is headed OOB.
I'm just trying to understand the interpretation by the Fed, and their apparent attempt to maintain - from their viewpoint - consistency in such situations.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I'm just trying to understand the interpretation by the Fed, and their apparent attempt to maintain - from their viewpoint - consistency in such situations.

Many here would discourage your efforts, on the grounds that the case play contradicts the rule.

Many of us regard the case play as founded on the flawed idea that one touch can be both the last touch in the frontcourt and the first touch in the backcourt.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I'm just trying to understand the interpretation by the Fed, and their apparent attempt to maintain - from their viewpoint - consistency in such situations.

The NFHS has basically said that it's possible to both be the last to touch the ball while it had frontcourt status and the first to touch AFTER it gained a backcourt status at the very same time. The NFHS probably implemented some quantum physics in coming up with that ruling. This interpretation also implies that it's a violation to cause the ball to gain backcourt status which is stupid as well because it isn't a violation.

Basically don't try and make sense of this.

[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.