backcourt or play on?
 

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)

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.

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?:confused:

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.

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.

For more reading:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...itch-10-a.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tion-10-a.html

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.

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.

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.

Watch Me Pull A Rabbit Out Of My Hat ...
 

Neat trick. Now for my next trick:

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.47403...79631&pid=15.1

It's True, It's True ...
 

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.

9.9.1 Sit C--legal play
 

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.

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.

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.

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, :D). 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.

Okay. I had forgot about this thread but it lays out my position and I will not disavow it. In fact, that is my story and I am sticking with it. Thank you APG for finding it for me. It means I do not have to type it out all over again.

MTD, Sr.

I'm not big on raising old threads from the dead, but...

Guess what question showed up on our closed-book rule exam last night!

I actually smiled when I saw it, because I thought of this thread, but it was the only question that caused confusion. Our interp had to advise us to "answer the question as it is."

I foresee an interesting discussion when the test gets handed back.