Exactly what reference
 

APG: What is the reference for this interpretation that states that team A player would have to wait for the ball to hit in the backcourt? Are you referring to something other than NFHS books? I'm not arguing, just interested.
Before I have to explain this one to a coach, I want to be able to quote chapter/verse. I was buying the party line until I couldn't find it in the casebook. I like the A-A-A analogy: If team A had team control in frontcourt, team A last touched the ball in the frontcour, and team A is first to touch in backcourt, then violation. If any one of those 3 As is a Bs, no violation. However, if there is a casebook play that contradicts this, please share.
I'm specifically referencing NFHS 12-13 books but would also like to know the reference if in another publication.

There was a "SITUATION" posted by the NFHS a couple years ago that, in opposition to the rulebook and against how 99.9% of the basketball world understood the rule, says exactly what APG has noted.

That SITUATION is fundamentally flawed and can't be made to be true by even the most creative twisting of the words of the rule.

The Monday Night Football game is boring and it is getting late so I will attempt to make this short, but anybody who bets on the over will win the Over and Under Bet.

This school year will be my 42nd year officiating basketball and the ruling that I will give has been the same for 42 years and longer.

Play 1: A1 is holding the ball while standing in Team A's Frontcourt. A1 releases the ball on a pass to A2, who is also standing in Team A's Frontcourt. B1, who is in contact with the playing surface of Team A's Frontcourt bats the pass such that the ball is deflected toward Team A's Backcourt. A1 runs into Team A's Backcourt and catches the Ball while it is still in the air and before it touches the playing surface of Team A's Backcourt. Ruling 1: Backcourt Violation by Team A.

Play 2: A1 is holding the ball while standing in Team A's Backcourt. A1 releases the ball on a pass to A2, who is also standing in Team A's Frontcourt. B1, who is in contact with the playing surface of Team A's Frontcourt bats the pass such that the ball is deflected toward Team A's Backcourt. A1, while still standing in Team A's Backcourt and catches the Ball while it is still in the air and before it touches the playing surface of Team A's Backcourt. Ruling 2: Backcourt Violation by Team A.

Why is the Ruling in both Plays a Backcourt Violation?

Play 1: Team A had control of the ball in it's Frontcourt and even though B1 bats the Ball, Team A still has control of the ball and the Ball still has Frontcourt status. When A1, while standing in his team's Backcourt touched the ball, he simultaneously: (a) caused the Ball to go from Team A's Frontcourt to its Backcourt and (b) was the first player to touch the Ball after making it the Ball to go from his team's Frontcourt to his team's Backcourt.

Play 2: A1 causes the Ball to gain Frontcourt status when his pass is batted by B1. Therefore Team A has control of the ball in it's Frontcourt and even though B1 bats the Ball, Team A still has control of the ball and the Ball still has Frontcourt status. When A1, while standing in his team's Backcourt touched the ball, he simultaneously: (a) caused the Ball to go from Team A's Frontcourt to its Backcourt and (b) was the first player to touch the Ball after making it the Ball to go from his team's Frontcourt to his team's Backcourt.

The key to these Rulings is the word: simultaneously. This word has been the linchpin of this interpretation for over 45 years, by the NBCUSC, NFHS, and NCAA.

It is late and I am going to go to bed now. Good night all and sleep tight.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. (1) How do I know this, because even though I am getting old (meaning I am not going to climb up into the attic) and senile (according to Mark, Jr., and Andy) I know that this has always (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirely) been the official ruling from the NBCUS, NFHS, and NCAA all those years ago. (2) NBCUSC: National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada, the predecessor orgainzation for the NFHS and the NCAA Rules Committees and its rulings still apply to NFHS and NCAA rules unless the a rule has subsequently changed to affect the NBCUSC ruling (I hope that made sense because it is getting on towards 11:30pmEDT as I write this post).

All nice Mark, but the rule says it is only a violation of A was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gains backcourt status. As an engineer, you should now that BEFORE is not equal to simultaneous. (i.e., < is not the same as = or <= ). Also, the rule doesn't depend on causing the ball to gain BC status.

In both of your plays who was the last to touch the ball before it gained backcourt status? B. No violation.


If your interpretation were right, a defender would only need to be in the frontcount and touch the ball in mid dribble if a dribbler were near the division line to give the ball FC status. If the dibble were continued, it would fit your interpretation and be a violation. Do you really think it should be an offensive violation for letting the defense merely touch the ball? Think about that...it doesn't make any sense. Why would it be any different if the time/distance between the touches were a bit larger?

Mark, how about this play?

A1, dribbling in the back court near the division line. B1 guarding. B1 reaches and slaps the ball (giving it front court status) so that it hits A1's leg (giving it backcourt status).

Violation or not?

I think the difference with your play is that the rule specifically says that the dribbler has to have both feet and the ball in the front court. So, the mere touching of the ball by the defender really doesn't matter until the ball and both feet cross. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

As soon as the defender hits the ball, it gains frontcourt status. Three points is not relevant for the defender to cause the ball to be in the front court.

Yep. Three points does not apply to an interrupted dribble.

I would restart the BC count in this play.

I would agree with that, but in that situation, you wouldn't have a backcourt violation either. Or are we talking apples and oranges?

Or, A1 holding the ball in the backcourt, near the division line. B1 standing in the front court, knocks the ball out of his hands, straight into the air.

While the ball is in the air, a) A1 reaches up and grabs the ball, in the backcourt, or b) B1 reaches up and taps it one more time (standing in the frontcourt) before A1 is able to grab it out of the air (in the backcourt).

Mark, do you have a violation in either a or b?

KyKatsFan,

This was covered in the 2007-2008 rules interpretation release.

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)

Why wouldn't you?

Rule 9-9-1 A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

My understanding of your situation is that the ball was never in player and team control in the frontcourt. Correct?

The wording of the rule is why a lot of people were in arms about how the rule change last year was implemented. NFHS's PowerPoint presentation told we handle all backcourt plays as we have before...otherwise, if you took the literal meaning wording, A1 could throw the ball from the backcourt...have A2 bat the pass from the frontcourt back into the backcourt, and it wouldn't be a violation since there was no player control in the frontcourt...yet this is still a backcourt violation (Case book play 9.9.1 Situation C).

Ok, I see your point. Though it seems that the NFHS wants it called a violation regardless. It was funky since the rule change ... still is.