Back Court Violation

[Ed Maeder]

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!

[BillyMac]

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)

[Ed Maeder]

Thank You! Is this interpretation still up to date?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

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?

[DrPete]

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 !!!

[Adam]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Toren]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

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.