backcourt or play on?

[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.

[Adam]

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?

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

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

Why wouldn't you?

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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?

[APG]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

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).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

Camron:

Its not my intepretation. It was the interpretation that was given to me at least 35 years ago. That said, I am, more or less, neutral in this debate; even though I feel very comfortable making the call using the interpretation I was given at least 35 years ago. Sadly, I never asked for a reason, i.e., rule basis for this interpretation so I can only surmise what it might have been. That said, I just got home from a courier run and have to get ready for a WCBOA rules/mechanics meeting tonight; Daryl "The Preacher" H. Long, Junior, and I are having dinner before the meeting (the dinner is a tax deduction, ). And I am preparing a letter regarding a RULING in a new CB Play in the 2012-13 NFHS Casebook which is absolutely flat out wrong and cannot be defended by rule which will take come before this debate. But I do have something to add later to this debate.

MTD, Sr.