The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Maeder View Post
Thank You! Is this interpretation still up to date?
I don't have my books with me, but if it's not in the current case book then no one (here) knows for certain.

FED has never said (afaik) whether interps that aren't in the case book are(a) invalid or (b) valid until a contrary interp is published?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Posts: 132
The old case book reference applies to a situation where Team A has the ball in the front court.

Wouldn't this situation also apply and be a back court violation?
If the ball was in control of team A and still in the back court, but A1 made a pass to A2 (also in the BC) near the division line, that was deflected by B1, who is standing in the front court, and then caught by A2 (still in the BC). Team A still has team control, ball has front court status, then A2's catch "causes the ball to have BC status and is also the first to touch in the BC".

I can see coaches and fans going ballistic when you call this a back court violation !!!

Last edited by DrPete; Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:16pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:00pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Both situations fit the same logic, but I'm not calling either.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:44pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,410
Nor Would I Bet My Bottom Dollar ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
I don't have my books with me, but if it's not in the current case book then no one (here) knows for certain.
I believe that this situation was an annual interpretation, not a casebook play. Whether, or not, annual interpretations carry over, they probably do, unless a rule changes that overturns them, but I wouldn't bet my house on that.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 736
This play

recently (within the last two weeks) got some attention here in Colorado.

We have gotten interpretations from Peter Webb, IAABO coordinator of Rules Interpreters & Trainers and Art Hyland, Sec. Ed. NCAA Basketball Rules Committee, both have confirmed that Situation 10 is accurate and up to date.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toren View Post
recently (within the last two weeks) got some attention here in Colorado.

We have gotten interpretations from Peter Webb, IAABO coordinator of Rules Interpreters & Trainers and Art Hyland, Sec. Ed. NCAA Basketball Rules Committee, both have confirmed that Situation 10 is accurate and up to date.
So they are saying the rule book is wrong?
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
So they are saying the rule book is wrong?
Not exactly. They are saying that Team A maintained Team control (we all agree on that) and that Team A caused the ball to have backcourt status (We can all agree on that).

So, the touching by Team A in the backcourt, before it bounced, was a simultaneous front court, back court touching.

It took me about 1 full day to get my mind wrapped around it, but I can dig it.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:36am
(Something hilarious)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: These United States
Posts: 1,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toren View Post
Not exactlySo, the touching by Team A in the backcourt, before it bounced, was a simultaneous front court, back court touching.
That's the part I don't like. It should be one or the other.

To move the play somewhere else, A1, who's first to touch the ball in flight last touched in bounds, touches it while standing on or completely over the boundary line and in OB territory, is not simultaneously touching the ball in bounds and out of bounds. They are OB, and have OB status. The ball, then, does too, the moment A1 touches it.

I don't like that play interp. A was simply not the last to touch in the front court. Until there's a case play that says otherwise, or the NCAA or Fed books change the requirements for a backcourt violation, I will continue to see it that way.
__________________
I can't remember the last time I wasn't at least kind-of tired.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toren View Post
Not exactly. They are saying that Team A maintained Team control (we all agree on that) and that Team A caused the ball to have backcourt status (We can all agree on that).

So, the touching by Team A in the backcourt, before it bounced, was a simultaneous front court, back court touching.

It took me about 1 full day to get my mind wrapped around it, but I can dig it.
So, again, you (and they) are saying the rule book is wrong?

Causing the ball to have backcourt status has nothing to do with the backcourt rule. Causing to have backcourt status is not illegal in any way.

That is just not a violation according to the rule. To be a violation, A must have been the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status. And before is not the same as simultaneous.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association

Last edited by Camron Rust; Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:57am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Causing the ball to have backcourt status has nothing to do with the backcourt rule.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Back Court Violation? shishstripes Basketball 9 Mon Feb 23, 2009 05:59pm
back court violation tag46176 Basketball 3 Sun Nov 02, 2008 03:12am
yet another back court violation sny1120 Basketball 3 Sat Feb 26, 2005 05:08pm
Back court violation?? mwalker13004 Basketball 11 Tue Jan 06, 2004 03:22pm
Back court Violation? jerrydon Basketball 5 Tue May 01, 2001 05:43pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1