Backcourt violation? 2007-08 Interp

[rfp]

Reviewing old interps and am struggling with this one.

SITUATION 7: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1's deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

Since Team A is making the throw-in, why doesn't 9-9-3 apply where the "while on defense" exception covers a defensive player going from his frontcourt to his backcourt? The tip ends the throw-in, but a defensive player can still go from his frontcourt to backcourt while making a steal, no? Just because the throw-in was tipped doesn't mean B2 is no longer a defensive player.

[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

[rfp]

Scrapper1: so is this interpretation no longer valid since there's now team control on a throw-in? Or is the team not in control still not considered to be on defense? If we see this play today, how are we to rule?

[APG]

Originally Posted by rfp

Scrapper1: so is this interpretation no longer valid since there's now team control on a throw-in? Or is the team not in control still not considered to be on defense? If we see this play today, how are we to rule?

NFHS has said we handle all backcourt violation plays as we had previously before team control inlcuded the throw-in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

NFHS has said we handle all backcourt violation plays as we had previously before team control inlcuded the throw-in.

And sadly, they failed in their attempt to fix the rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by APG

NFHS has said we handle all backcourt violation plays as we had previously before team control included the throw-in.

Good luck to rookie officials who only have access to a 2012-13 rulebook and casebook.

[Zoochy]

That interp has been removed from the case book. That was one of a bunch of questions I posted on this board many years ago. They created a healthy discussion. A few others were part of IAABO and NFHS interps. Only one made it to the case book.