backcourt or play on?

[mdray]

A1, while dribbling in his/her frontcourt, has the ball tipped toward the backcourt by B1. A2, standing in the backcourt, catches the tipped ball before it contacts the playing court. Play on, correct? (rule is the same for both FED & NCAA, although each rulebook articulates a bit differently)

[APG]

By an idiotic interpretation laid out by NFHS, this would be a backcourt violation.

2007-2008 NFHS Basketball Interpretations

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)

Now, whether that's actually how this play getting called...that's a different issue.

[mdray]

doesn't A have to be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt? are they saying when A2 caught the tipped ball, he was touching it both in the frontcourt and the backcourt at the same time?

[APG]

Originally Posted by mdray

doesn't A have to be he last to touch the ball in the frontcourt? are they saying when A2 caught the tipped ball, he was touching it both in the frontcourt and the backcourt at the same time?

NFHS is saying A2 was the last to touch the ball while the ball had frontcourt status...and first to touch the ball after the ball achieved a backcourt status...at the same time.

As I told you, it's an idiotic interpretation that doesn't make sense, and you'll find most on the board probably trash it (and some my not enforce it). It's best not to try and get in the minds of those that write the NFHS interpretations sometimes.

[twocentsworth]

fellas, my reading of the interp/case book post, is that the ball STILL had front court status (it never touch the backcourt) until A2 touched it while standing in the backcourt.

that is a backcourt violation.

if,in the OP or in the case book post, A2 had simply let the ball bounce in the backcourt BEFORE touching it, all would be OK...since A2 touched it prior to the ball touching the backcourt, now we've got the violation.

[APG]

For more reading:

New interps Sitch # 10

2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.

[APG]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

fellas, my reading of the interp/case book post, is that the ball STILL had front court status (it never touch the backcourt) until A2 touched it while standing in the backcourt.

that is a backcourt violation.

if,in the OP or in the case book post, A2 had simply let the ball bounce in the backcourt BEFORE touching it, all would be OK...since A2 touched it prior to the ball touching the backcourt, now we've got the violation.

The interpretation is saying that Team A was both the last to touch and first to touch...at the exact same time. The rule says they must be the last to touch BEFORE the ball goes into the backcourt.

9-9
ART. 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.

And if you look at the interpretations justification, it says that Team A caused the ball to have backcourt status...which doesn't make sense because it's never a violation to cause the ball to have a backcourt status or we'd whistle violations the minute the ball entered the backcourt from the frontcourt on other backcourt plays.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mdray

When A2 caught the tipped ball, he was touching it both in the frontcourt and the backcourt at the same time?

Neat trick. Now for my next trick:

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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?

[Adam]

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?

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

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