Backcourt violation? 2007-08 Interp

[Camron Rust]

I agree with you.

While the rule and case don't agree, logically, the exception should apply to any one on any team until a team has control of the ball while in contact with the floor (or they make a pass). Tips on a throwin should simply be ignored.

[letemplay]

Cam, I'm not sure I follow you when you say tips should be ignored.

[rfp]

In the other related case plays, the tip is an important element as it defines the end of the throw-in and therefore the end of the throw-in exception for backcourt violations. But in this situation, I'm saying that while the throw-in exception may have ended, the exception to the backcourt rule by a defensive player making a play still holds.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Cam, I'm not sure I follow you when you say tips should be ignored.

Backcourt violations have 2 exceptions for defensive players--stealing a pass and stealing a throw-in. But since a throw-in ends once it is legally touched the interp was written as if it would now be a violation because the throw-in ended. But the interp forgets that the tip does not change the fact that it is still a defensive steal of a pass.

[letemplay]

Because all the tip does is change a throw in to a pass? Gotcha, thanks.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Backcourt violations have 2 exceptions for defensive players--stealing a pass and stealing a throw-in. But since a throw-in ends once it is legally touched the interp was written as if it would now be a violation because the throw-in ended. But the interp forgets that the tip does not change the fact that it is still a defensive steal of a pass.

The defensive element of this play was written and was intended to not apply to a throwin related situation but when one team has control of the ball inbounds. The defense is not affected by such tips in those cases as team control for the other team persists until B actually catches the ball.

[Nevadaref]

When dealing with past interps, one must consider what was the text of the rules at the time. When that interp was issued team control did not exist during a throw-in and the "exceptions" to the backcourt violations were worded differently in previous years. It didn't say defensive player, but a player of the team not in control.
I will have to consult my old books and get back to you, but the actual wording of the text for that particular season is the key to understanding that ruling.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

When that interp was issued team control did not exist during a throw-in and the "exceptions" to the backcourt violations were worded differently in previous years. It didn't say defensive player, but a player of the team not in control.

Correct, and the rulebook does not recognize offense or defense during a throw-in. We had a huge debate on this a long time ago. While common sense tells us that the the team making the throw-in is on offense, the rulebook consistently refers to that team as the "throw-in" team, and the other team is the opponent of the throw-in team. (This was the case back when we had this debate. With the crappy changes/editing in recent years, who knows if it's still true.)

So the exception for "the team on defense" would not apply, because until control is established after the throw-in, there is no team on defense. And since the throw-in has ended, the throw-in exception doesn't apply, either.

Therefore, violation.

[APG]

Silly rule/interpretation from NFHS IMO