Back Court Violation
 

Can someone give the the correct place to find the publication on a person in the back court catching the ball in the air and being the last to touch in front court and first to touch in back court simultaneously. Thanks in advance!

This Play ???
 

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)

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?

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 !!!

Both situations fit the same logic, but I'm not calling either.

Nor Would I Bet My Bottom Dollar ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't have backcourt status at the time of the violation? That's an easy one.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not in my game.

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