Backcourt ruling?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A1, in the frontcourt, near the division line, throws a bounce pass across the court such that the ball bounces in the backcourt very near the division line and then bounces in the frontcourt. A2, in the frontcourt, also near the division line, catches the ball. Neither player was ever in the backcourt, the ball was in the frontcourt at the time each player touched it. Yet, it is a violation.

Reverse the positions such that the players are both in the backcourt and the pass bounces in the frontcourt. Also a violation even though neither player was ever in the frontcourt.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What Camron said, plus the play from the case book where A1 in the BC throws the ball that hits the official in the FC. The ball caroms to the BC where A1 recovers. Violation.

Thanks.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

By rule, the original post is a backcourt violation.

By rule, it is not a violation. A single touch can't be the last touch before it goes into the backcourt and the first touch after it goes into the backcourt.

By interpretation (that is contrary to the rule), it could be.

Me, I'm going with the rule. It has been unchanged for a very long time.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

By rule, it is not a violation. A single touch can't be the last touch before it goes into the backcourt and the first touch after it goes into the backcourt.

By interpretation (that is contrary to the rule), it could be.

Me, I'm going with the rule. It has been unchanged for a very long time.

Whether we agree/disagree with the wording of the rule vs the interpretation, the federation has decided the play should be ruled a violation. We all have seen where their wording can sometimes cause confusion instead of clarification ... like when they changed the "team control on a throw-in" rule. And the wording still has a hole or two in it.

[BryanV21]

As soon as the ball is deflected by B1 and is heading towards the backcourt, we are supposed to signal a tipped ball. Right? And if that's the case, and we still call the BC violation, what was the point of the signal?

[Toren]

Who gives the ball backcourt status? A1 does.

Backcourt violation.

Don't we do this argument every year? Until the interpretation changes, I'm not ruling any differently.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A1, in the frontcourt, near the division line, throws a bounce pass across the court such that the ball bounces in the backcourt very near the division line and then bounces in the frontcourt. A2, in the frontcourt, also near the division line, catches the ball. Neither player was ever in the backcourt, the ball was in the frontcourt at the time each player touched it. Yet, it is a violation.

Case play reference please?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Toren

Who gives the ball backcourt status? A1 does.

Backcourt violation.

Don't we do this argument every year? Until the interpretation changes, I'm not ruling any differently.

A1 giving the ball a backcourt status is not a violation.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by APG

A1 giving the ball a backcourt status is not a violation.

I don't recall saying Backcourt Status Violation.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Toren

I don't recall saying Backcourt Status Violation.

Forgive me if I read this wrong, but it sounded like you're justifying the interpretation when you asked and answered who give the ball a backcourt status.

Originally Posted by Toren

Who gives the ball backcourt status? A1 does.

Backcourt violation.

The violation has never been for A1 giving the ball a backcourt status...if that were true, then A1 simply throwing the ball into the backcourt would be a violation as soon as the ball hit in the backcourt.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by APG

Forgive me if I read this wrong, but it sounded like you're justifying the interpretation when you asked and answered who give the ball a backcourt status.

I was mostly playing word games.

I don't get paid enough to justify the interpretation.

But the interpretation is there and I don't see any reason to ignore it.


Incidentally, Art Hyland, John Adams and Peter Webb have all said the interpretation is correct.

[Welpe]

We've been discussing this for so long I don't remember but did this interpretation ever make it to the case book?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Welpe

We've been discussing this for so long I don't remember but did this interpretation ever make it to the case book?

No.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

We've been discussing this for so long I don't remember but did this interpretation ever make it to the case book?

No, they didn't put that play in the casebook. But, they added this one where they made a point to state that the ball hit the floor first. Seems to me that they could have just as easily cleaned up the wording ...

*9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A’s backcourt where it touches the floor. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In (a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second count.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by APG

if that were true, then A1 simply throwing the ball into the backcourt would be a violation as soon as the ball hit in the backcourt.

Perhaps it should be! Wouldn't it all be a lot easier to rewrite the whole mess such that if the ball is in the frontcourt, and A causes it to touch the ground behind the halfcourt line, blow the whistle and throw in for B.

[Adam]

Frankly, I wouldn't hold it against anyone either way. Aside from the interp, though (which is how old now?), there's no justification for calling this a violation. In fact, the rule is quite clearly the opposite.

It's as if they added an interpretation that stated it was a travel to lift the pivot foot. It's contrary to the rule as written.