Backcourt ruling?

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

And sometimes it is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

And sometimes it is.

Never without any further action.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Toren

And sometimes it is.

When?

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Welpe

When?

4-43-3 c

But let's not digress...we were just playing word games.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

But let's not digress...

Too late.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Toren

4-43-3 c

But let's not digress...we were just playing word games.

I figured that's what you meant.

That is Adam's whole point though (at least I think it is), just lifting the pivot is not a travel. An interpretation saying as much would be the same as this interpretation on backcourt.

(And it's 4-44-3-c this year )

[Mo-Money]

I guess I can't go wrong with either ruling since no one can come to the conclusion whether it's back court or not.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mo-Money

I guess I can't go wrong with either ruling since no one can come to the conclusion whether it's back court or not.

Only one ruling makes any sense and it isn't the one in the interpretation. There are several examples where the interpretation is simply illogical and inconsistent with both the clearly written rule how the game is played and had been called for decades. The interpretation was simply pulled out of thin air by someone on the committee after they had too many drinks one night and it got through because no one was paying attention. If that was what they really wanted, they would have reworded the rule so it didn't contradict. The only reason it hasn't been retracted is that they hope it fades away quietly without having to admit it was a screw up....sort of like that ridiculous IAABO interpretation we discusses a month or so ago.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Mo-Money

I guess I can't go wrong with either ruling since no one can come to the conclusion whether it's back court or not.

Peter Webb
Art Hyland
John Adams

Those three say unequivocally that it is a backcourt violation. That is a lot of clout.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Toren

Peter Webb
Art Hyland
John Adams

Those three say unequivocally that it is a backcourt violation. That is a lot of clout.

I've not seen those three state that.

Plus, the NCAA wording of the rule is different in such a way that it might be interpreted that way....but not the NFHS.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've not seen those there state that.

Have you asked? I asked them last year, 2012-2013.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Toren

Have you asked? I asked them last year, 2012-2013.

Why should I? None of them have any jurisdiction over the level the interpretation was made at. There are several others here who's opinions matter just as much to me that agree that the interpretation makes on sense.

[ARef]

Originally Posted by Toren

Peter Webb
Art Hyland
John Adams

Those three say unequivocally that it is a backcourt violation. That is a lot of clout.

Is there documentation for this? Because this is not how the college rule is written.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by 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?

I know IAABO is the bane of many's existence here, but we were told in a meeting just last month NOT to give this signal.

Perhaps this scenario is one of the reasons.

[APG]

The tipped signal should be given once the ball is deflected by the defense and the ball is in the backcourt.