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.

[legend]

That would be the same type of ruling as when a1 is standing out of bounds and b1 throws the ball off of him while b1 still has "oncourt" status. A was the person last to touch the ball so it now becomes B's ball.
I see this type of play mostly on throw-ins where b1 deflects the pass from a1 back into the body of the thrower.

[APG]

Originally Posted by legend

That would be the same type of ruling as when a1 is standing out of bounds and b1 throws the ball off of him while b1 still has "oncourt" status. A was the person last to touch the ball so it now becomes B's ball.
I see this type of play mostly on throw-ins where b1 deflects the pass from a1 back into the body of the thrower.

Except they aren't the same. It's a violation to cause the ball to be out of bounds. It's not a violation to cause the ball to have a backcourt status.

[Camron Rust]

The rule and the "situation" disagree (as others have said). The rule has been the same for a very long time and I don't know anyone that ever thought such a play was a violation. The publication of that situation was the first time anyone ever even suggested such a ruling. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't agree with the actual rule. I go with the rule.

[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:

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by legend

That would be the same type of ruling as when a1 is standing out of bounds and b1 throws the ball off of him while b1 still has "oncourt" status. A was the person last to touch the ball so it now becomes B's ball.

Which reminds me of a play from back in the olden days. On an inbounds play, thrower-in-er A1 throws an inbounds pass that first touches B1 who is out of bounds. Back in the mid-twentieth century, this was a throwin violation, and the ball went to Team B, out of bounds, at a spot at the original throwin.

I'm pretty sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm or deny this old interpretation.

[KyKatsFan]

This casebook play is not exactly the same but it very close with the same potential violation/legal play. This casebook play leans toward the common sense approach that many are of the previous posters are saying should be the answer.
9.9.1 C: A1 is dribbling in the backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. Legal play.
This doesn't stipulate whether or not the ball touches the court before the ball is touched in the backcourt.
NFHS 2012-2013 9.9.1 Sit C

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KyKatsFan

This casebook play is not exactly the same but it very close with the same potential violation/legal play. This casebook play leans toward the common sense approach that many are of the previous posters are saying should be the answer.
9.9.1 C: A1 is dribbling in the backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. Legal play.
This doesn't stipulate whether or not the ball touches the court before the ball is touched in the backcourt.
NFHS 2012-2013 9.9.1 Sit C

Which is in direct contradiction to the reasoning given in the infamous interpretation.

[APG]

The case book play specifically states the ball was hit back into the backcourt before the A player retrieved the ball. It does so because the ball the ball gained a frontcourt status from the B deflection and doesn't gain a backcourt status until the ball is touched by something in the backcourt (which it didn't state) or it touches the floor (including the midcourt line) in the backcourt. The interpretation already states that an A player would have to wait for the ball to hit in the backcourt before they could be the first to touch.