The Official Forum - Back Court Violation

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Back Court Violation (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/94173-back-court-violation.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 882025)

Give me an example of a backcourt violation where the ball doesn't have backcourt status. To say it has nothing to do with it, is a bit of a stretch.

I initially disagreed with the ruling of Situation 10. However, when I heard from Peter and Art, I changed my mind. I'm not trying to convince you.

The violation, by rule, is for being the last to touch it BEFORE it went to the bc and proceeding to be the first to touch it after that. There is no way a single event can occur both before and after something else.

The logic of the interpretation would dictate the following play be a bc violation:

A1 holding the ball in his bc near the division line. He attempts to pass into the FC, but B1 jumps from the FC and deflects the ball back into A1's hands.

As for your question above, easy. A1 in the FC throws a bounce pass that bounces on the division line. A2 (in the FC) catches it a) after that one bounce, or B) after it bounces a second time (but the second bounces was in the FC).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 882040)

A1, in the frontcourt but near the division line, throws a pass across the court towards A3, who is also in the frontcourt near the division line. The ball bounces in the backcourt on the pass (or bounces off the referee) and then bounces in the frontcourt on the pass before A3, who is in the frountcourt, catches the ball.

That is a violation while the ball has FC status.

And it is not a stretch at all. You're confusing the OOB rules with backcourt rules. They are not not the same. Causing the ball to be OOB is a violation. Causing the ball to have backcourt status is nothing.

The primary part of the backcourt rule that is ignored by this interpretation is that the backcourt rule defines an order of events that are needed to have a violation. To have a violation, A must be the last to touch BEFORE it gains backcourt status and the first to touch AFTER it gains backcourt status (regardless of what the status is at the time of each touch). Before and After are not the same as simultaneous.

Situation 10 and Peter Webb and Art Hyland (through John Adams) all disagree with your interpretation. If you want to shoot me an email address, through a private link, I will shoot you the email I received from those gentlemen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 882043)

I believe you. That doesn't make them right. All it takes is a basic reading of the rule to see that.

My take on the rule is FAR from unique and that was the way it was called for decades before someone pulled situation 10 out of thin air.

The situation just flat out contradicts the rule. It wouldn't be the first time someone in high places made a ruling contrary to the actual rules. Usually, they either admit their error or change the rule to make themselves correct.

If they wanted to change the rule to mean that, they should rewrite the rule, not write a situation that disagrees with the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 882042)

A1 holding the ball in his bc near the division line. He attempts to pass into the FC, but B1 jumps from the FC and deflects the ball back into A1's hands.

Ding ding ding. And that is why this interp is just plain stupid (IMHO) per the written rules in both books. You could change Adam's play here and say A1, holding the ball in the FC near the division line throws a pass that is deflected by B1 who is standing in the backcourt near the division line, and the ball is then caught in the air from the deflection by any A player. That, by the interp's logic, should also be a BC violation. It shouldn't be, though, per the written rules of what's required for BC violations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP (Post 882058)

Or maybe I'm just all worked up and confusing myself at this point, but the interp is still dumb and contrary to the written rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder (Post 881625)

Thank You! Is this interpretation still up to date?

Not in my game.

When a case play or interp is contrary to the rule book, I tend to follow the rule book.