Another problem with the new backcourt rule?
 

Just going over Rule 9 and noticed 9-9-2 now says:

The underlined part was added this year to compensate (yet again) for the new team control rules. However, does this now contradict the age-old "three points in the frontcourt" rule for a dribbler?

If I'm dribbling from backcourt to frontcourt, and I dribble the ball so that it touches the frontcourt but I'm still in the backcourt, doesn't this new rule say that I've committed a backcourt violation? I have player control (I'm dribbling a live ball) in my backcourt, and I've caused the ball to go to the frontcourt and then back to the backcourt without being touched by another player.

Don't think the new rule changed 4-4-1:

A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

More directly, and though you address it, the status of the ball doesn't change to frontcourt for purposes of the rule according to 4-4-6:

During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt.

Since the ball is never established in the frontcourt according to the above I don't think it contradicts the new wording.

The 3-points rule means that in this situation the ball has not yet attained FC status.

No contradiction...you never caused the ball to go into the frontcourt by virtue of you being a dribbler which means the ball is in the frontcourt only when both feet and the ball are in the frontcourt.

Scrapper I think you are over thinking this. the three point rule still applies.

Notice, though, that it doesn't say that the ball must gain frontcourt status. It just says backcourt to frontcourt. While dribbling, the ball can clearly go into the frontcourt without having frontcourt status.

1) I'm clearly overthinking it. I don't even have a scrimmage until next week, so I have to do something. :D

2) The 3-points rule still applies, but (maybe) only because they've told us to ignore the actual wording of the rules when they cause a contradiction with how certain plays were called last year.

And how does the ball go from backcourt to frontcourt? The rule has always read that way except with the added part about player control...if you really read it the way you are, you'd be calling this a violation in the past.The only way it does so while a player is dribbling the ball is if all three points are in the frontcourt. Otherwhise, in your scenario, the ball is in the backcourt by rule.

What new backcourt rule ?? :confused:

What's so hard about the following...

The rule change adding team control during a throw in only affects the administration of fouls committed during the throw in. It has no affect on existing frontcourt-backcourt, three seconds, or traveling/dribbling violations.

The comments on the changes say that, but the rules that got changed actually say otherwise. The new team control rules (as actually written) create several new violations that didn't exist before. But the comments provided with them say that those things are not actually violations.

So, in a few years, we'll be having an argument about the rules where one person will accuse others of making up their own rules and will insist that they should be called as they're written while another person will be arguing on the side of intent and purpose of the rule.

Anything that depends on team control is affected....the 3 second count, 10 second count, over-and-back.

Let 'em "fix" them next year.

Meanwhile, let's not shoot foul shots when a foul is committed on a throw in and officiate everthing else like we always have, instead of having people call violations on that were never intended to be called as violations.

Spirit and Intent.... It's not that hard !!

I agree, but that will not stop someone, somewhere down the road saying that they should be enforced as written....we've been there so many times it is bound to happen again.

+1

Those are the guys that don't get it and never will.

They don't like to study what we really do, they just like to argue.

But still, it is far better to write and well written rule...one that is simple, concise, and accurate than to depend on tribal knowledge about what they really meant.

Fix The Rule ...
 

If an intelligent alien from Mars landed on Earth and wanted to become a basketball official, and he memorized the 2011-12 rule book backward, and forward, how would he know the purpose and intent of this team control rule, and the "intent" of this rule in regard to the backcourt rule?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...81763625fb84eb

My fear is that they won't really fix it. They'll keep relying on "you know what we mean". Or nibble at the edges, trying to patch the problem instead of just scrapping it and starting over.

Not necessarily. Could be someone who begins his officiating career in the summer of 2012 and hasn't been privy to the previous wording of the rules. We've had quite a few debates here in which 5,6,7 year-old interps are used to provide the answer because the rule and case books aren't clear.

Best way i handle these debates pull in our rules interpreter and one or two members on the board and ask. HOW DO YOU WANT US TO HANDLE THIS?

Ends any debate and gives clear direction on which way to move forward.

the new team control rules effect all team control violations??? How??

Even though the team is in control during the throw in, no front court or back court status has been established.... no 3 second... 10 second... etc... what am I missing????

An additional situation... a1 in back court throws to a2 in front court, a2 turns his heaad and the ball hits a2 in the back.... upon contact of a2 two feet and the ball are in front court, ball bounces back to a1 in the back court... violation???? I know my call.. do you know yours??

By definition. It's been that way in NCAA for a few years now.

Again, by definition. The change (although poorly implemented) was desinged ONLY to not have FTs when the "offense" fouls during a throw-in, so it's treated the same as other game situations.

First, the "three points rule" applies only during a dribble, so it's not relevant in your play. Second, this ruling hasn't changed. It has "always" been a BC violation, and still is.

LMAO...well stated, I guess the point I'm making is guys read too much into the rule. You would be AMAZED at how many guys miss it......And I mean good veteran officials

To be fair, the rule could be better written. Wouldn't be surprised if we get some editorial changes to reflect a clearing meaning behind the rule.

So when a brand new official pops open the rule book and reads about needing both "player and team control" in the front court in order to have a BC violation, he's reading too much into the rule?

Well, at least he's reading the rule book.

lol...in that case he/she would not only be reading..but almost have "knowledge" of said rule

Actually, the committed wrote the rule with a wording that indicates, as written, that the backcourt violations are affected. They then commented that it shouldn't be and that only the throwin is affected regardless of what the rule actually says. No one is reading too much into the rule....the rule was poorly written.

"The rule change adding team control during a throw in only affects the administration of fouls committed during the throw in. It has no affect on existing frontcourt-backcourt, three seconds, or traveling/dribbling violations."

What is the source of the above quote given by asdf?

I am not sure where asdf found that information but I have seen something very close since his/her post.

My State Association published this statement in their mandatory online basketball rules meeting:

The change does not affect any of the following rules:
Three seconds in the lane
Travleing/Dribbling
Backcourt
Alternating-possession throw-in rules

Player A1 holding tha ball in the B/C near the D/L bounce passes the ball with english on it, into the F/C and then back into the B/C where his teammate A2 catches the passed ball?

My question was directed toward Scrapper1 and to how a ball goes from the the backcourt to the frontcourt while dribbling...all 3 points being in the frontcourt....which went back to my first post in the thread.

I located the source of this language. It appears in the powerpoint presentation distributed by the NFHS this season on the rule changes.

Just came across this on the NFHS site.

SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

Here's the whole document:

NFHS | 2011-12 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

Horribly worded reasoning.

Thank you!

Now I have another question or two: A1 has the ball for a sideline throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

Or

A1 has the ball for a sideline throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off B1’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

In both situations, the correct answer is supposedly that we have a backcourt violation on A because once the throw in is completed by A or B touching the ball, and there is team control in the FC because of the throw in, when A gains control in the BC we now have a BC violation. Obvious, but maybe obviously wrong.

If all this is true, why did the committee decide to differentiate between end-line and side-line for this play?

Not correct. Not a violation in either case. While the "rule" is written in such a way that these would appear to be violations, the commentary released by the NFHS has made it "clear" that these are actually not violations.

Until there is player control inbounds by team A, you can't have a backcourt violation at all.

Effectively, there are 2 team controls....one that starts on the throwin and affects the type of foul and the other that begins with inbounds player control an affects all other rules.

Even if this was not the case, your 2nd situation would still not be a backcourt violation as the last to touch the ball before it went to the backcourt was team B.

What Camron stated was correct.

Perhaps you are confusing the game situation where Team A is in control in their FC (not a throw in) and a pass is batted away by B1 but, hits A2 before going into the BC...if a Team A member is first to touch the ball in the BC...then you have a BC violation because Team A had "control" before it went into the BC.

In response
 

Men,

Thank you for your replies, but let me tell you a quick story. In the state I work in two trainers and local rules interpreters told a group of over 100 officials in a meeting that the two plays I posted were backcourt violations. I sat in the crowd that night and shook my head.

More later about this.

This is just WRONG! A team may not be in continuous control in the backcourt for 10 seconds. If there is team control during the throw-in, then there is team control as soon as the ball touches the backcourt. Technically (even though most officials don't call it this way), the ten-second count starts at that point. They didn't change 9-9 to say that the 10-second count starts when player and team control is established in the backcourt.

The comment in red shows a fundamental ignorance of the rules, and they even cited the rule! You know, I'm really getting pissed off that the NFHS has put the basketball rules into the hands of people who have seemingly no idea AT ALL what they're doing!

I agree with your rant, but please understand that the NFHS released the words posted by asdf earlier in this thread through a powerpoint presentation making it clear that only fouls have changed. Given that, the only way to take the interp you cited is that no count in the backcourt can begin until after player control has been established INBOUNDS. That is exactly how I taught it at our officials clinic and our meeting for the coaches in this area.

Here is another play that the new and incorrect wording of the team control rule would impact:

A1 has a throw-in. He passes the ball towards A2. The pass is deflected away by B1. While the ball is bouncing on the court, an official has an inadvertent whistle. Who gets the ball and where? Please answer for 2010-11 rules and 2011-12 rules. ;)

Wait a second. I posed this question a number of times when word of the rule changes first came out. I even commented when the 10-second should start in relation to throw-ins needed to be written more clearly and I was told I was pretty much off in my own world by several "esteemed" members. Now we want to have a discussion about it? :rolleyes:

Last year: AP throw-in. (The throw-in has ended with the legal touch by B1 and there's no team control. So the POI is an AP throw-in.)

This year: Throw-in to Team A, since the stoppage occurred while Team A had control.

Are you saying that we're supposed to use the arrow this year?

1) I didn't see your comments at that point. I honestly don't check in all that much during the off-season.

2) I don't think there's really a conversation to be had. It's obvious that the people who instituted this rule change have NO IDEA what they're doing to the rulebook. They want us to make several calls according to their intentions, instead of by what's actually in the rulebook. Sad.

Yes....still use the arrow. The team control that exists on the throw in is only team control for the purposes of fouls....nothing else. Full team control for all other situations doesn't begin until there is player control inbounds.

I am really tired of "call it how we want, forget about the actual rule".

1) That's an incredibly stupid rationale for a rule change.

2) If they're really committed to such an incredibly stupid rationale, they should at least write the rule to reflect it.

3) I tried to tell people not to mess with the definition of team control. But did anybody listen? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

And oh, by the way, since when is our rulebook superseded by a freakin' 20 minute powerpoint presentation?!?!?!? :mad:

When that power point comes directly from the NFHS...look we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it. At least we have clarification on how the rules is supposed to be properly applied. And more than likely, we'll get an editorial change or two in the next couple of years that will fix any discrepancies in the written rule.

Next couple of years? How about in the next couple of weeks they put out some interps with explanations so that we can at least have something in writing other than "it only affects foul calls".

The 2011-2012 NFHS basketball interpretations weren't enough for you? :confused:

It's not the wording that has me all worked up. Everybody knows that the wording is terrible. And everybody knows how we're supposed to call it. And yes, I keep saying "I tried to tell you . . ." but that's mostly a joke at this point.

What really has me twisted up is the bush league way the whole change and its "interpretation" has been handled; or more precisely, mishandled. It's like they filled a room with people who have never even read a rulebook. And then when they figured out -- way too late -- that they screwed the pooch, their solution is to say "ignore the rule and just call it this way". That is horrifyingly amateurish and, in my opinion, downright insulting to officials who are trying to be professional and who have spent literally years studying the books.

Agreed. For example, I can't believe they changed a basketball fundamental, and didn't even note it in the book.

Scrappy, just be thankful you don't officiate under NCAA Football rules. My head spins like a top trying to keep up with the latest interpretations and memos. :eek:

Thanks. After I typed my last post, I re-read it and thought it might be a little melodramatic. Even if you only sort of agree, it makes me feel like I'm not totally off-base.

You're preaching to the choir Brother Scrapper.

Yep, as Camron says the new rule change has now been stated to only impact FOULS. The AP throw-in was listed as an item that it does not change in the powerpoint.

None of which talk about a pass that is touched inbounds by A2 who is standing in the backcourt and then ball bounces in the backcourt. Since "technically" Team A has continous control and A2 is "inbounds" and "in the backcourt".

So to cover this play, instead of going by the rule book we go by that catch all--"it only affects foul calls"

I guess I don't see your confusion.

I don't see all the confusion over this (and the IF's on contact with a thrower in).

Yeah it might contradict a rule here and there, and it might be different than a definition here and there. But who cares? It's stated in black and white on what to do in these situations. How much more clarity can you ask for? If A happens apply punishment #1...

I'm not confused. But there are folks who didn't ref last year who will be ref'ing this year. And when they read the rulebook they are going come up with rule book based interpretations of certain plays such as the play we are talking about (throw-in, team control, touched inbounds by Team A, bouncing in back court). But then they are going to be told they are wrong and to call it like it has always been called. Well, withiout specific case plays and interps how do they know how it used to be called?

Situation 3 in the interps is not the same play. It emphasizes continous control but "techincally not inbounds" and "technically not in the backcourt" but our play does have continous control and is "techinically inbounds" and "technically in the backcourt".

And the people the year after that and the year after that....all of whom will not have the benefit of a PowerPoint presentation that will likely never be incorporated into the book...or at least not cleanly.

And The Really Sad Part About This Mess ...
 

... Is that we all saw it coming from a mile away. Why didn't the NFHS see this as a problem? What a bunch of knuckleheads.

This is the real source of the problem - unless and until the rule is changed appropriately there will be confusion and more of it each year.

Scrappy got it right above. It's totally amateur hour.

And it's an easy fix.

Subsequent a throw-in, a backcourt violation cannot occur and a 10-second backcourt count cannot begin until or unless player control has been established.

And that's the worst part of this: not only is your solution an example of a simple fix, but there were multiple other avenues to get the end result they desired without creating such a ridiculous ongoing issue.