backcourt or play on?

[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.

[KyKatsFan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by KyKatsFan

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.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by KyKatsFan

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?

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)