![]() |
Backcourt ruling?
I cannot find the ruling in the book or a scenario of any similar plays that would help me clarifies whether this is backcourt or not.
A1 is dribbling in his/her frontcourt. A1 then passes the ball which gets deflected by B1 into the air and crosses the midcourt line but before the ball touches the floor A1 runs to the backcourt and catches the ball before it hits the floor. Is this backcourt or not? The trail official gives the new tip mechanic to let everyone know that the ball is fair game to either player. I say its backcourt but my partner said no because it was tipped by the defensive player. If this is a backcourt violation can you please give me a reference that supports the ruling. |
In order for it to be a violation it has to be last touched by the offense in the FC and first touched by the offense in BC, in spite of a recent interp to the contrary. This was not the case in your play.
|
My understanding is that the ball is still in front court status since it did not touch the floor. Once A1 catches the ball, he is now the first and last person to touch it therefore, its backcourt.
|
Quote:
|
You just have to ask yourself two questions...
1. Who, the offense or defense, was the last to touch the ball in the FC? 2. Who, the offense or defense, was the first to touch the ball in the BC? If the answer to both of those questions is the offense, then you have yourself a violation. If not... play on. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The rule is not who is the last to touch the ball IN the frontcourt but who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status (not when it gained backcourt status). Likewise, it is about who is the first to touch the ball AFTER it gains backcourt status, not who is the first to touch the ball IN the backcourt. Much of the time, it it the same thing, but not always....and the difference matters. Plus, the difference is why the above play is not a violation. |
Quote:
And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening. |
Quote:
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. |
Based on everyone's feedback I guess everyone agree that it's not a back court violation then.
So here is another scenario...A1 is dribbling toward its front court and just before A1 reach mid-court he attempt to pass the ball to A2 who is in the front court. Unfortunately, the ball does not make it to A2 because B1 bats the ball back to A1 in the back court. During the passing and batting, the ball never touches the floor. Soon as B1 touch the ball would the ball status be consider having front court status now? Would this be a back court violation once A1 catch the batted ball from B1? |
Quote:
Violation, No, since B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backourt status....and the 10-count would start again. |
By rule, the original post is a backcourt violation.
2007-2008 rules interp ... 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) |
Quote:
The rule requirements for a backcourt violation include being the last to touch the ball "before" it went into the BC and then being the first to touch the ball after it went into the BC. The same event cannot be both before and after a separate event. |
Quote:
Look at it this way, if B1 had tapped the ball away from A1 toward the sideline and A1 ran OOB and caught the ball while standing OOB would you let play continue? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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?
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
We've been discussing this for so long I don't remember but did this interpretation ever make it to the case book?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
*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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But let's not digress...we were just playing word games. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 :)) |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Art Hyland John Adams Those three say unequivocally that it is a backcourt violation. That is a lot of clout. |
Quote:
Plus, the NCAA wording of the rule is different in such a way that it might be interpreted that way....but not the NFHS. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Perhaps this scenario is one of the reasons. |
The tipped signal should be given once the ball is deflected by the defense and the ball is in the backcourt.
|
Quote:
However, I can't find anything that says when the signal should be given. I'm looking in the rule book and the official's manual. EDIT: How about that? It's mentioned in the beginning of the book, under rule changes, that the signal chart "added a defensive tip to indicate that the official has ruled that the ball entered the backcourt as a result of contact with a defensive player". So, you're right APG. However, it still seems like the signal should be given sooner, so that the offense can try to get the ball right away instead of "holding up" to avoid a possible violation. |
Quote:
In almost every backcourt type call, the ball is going to gain a backcourt status before the offense would do any type of holding up. |
Quote:
I know this scenario may not be likely, and signalling sooner could cause confusion, but I'm just trying to see things from all angles. |
Quote:
Additionally, you are going to look like a real dumbass if you use this mechanic too early and it turns out that the ball does actually end up in the backcourt having last touched the offensive team and you then have to call a violation. |
Quote:
To answer your question.. yes, I played through high school. However, I'm not going to expect every player to play the game the same way I did. And seeing as how I wasn't that good, I would hope for their sake that they don't play the game the same way. And you know what they say about assuming, right? Not to mention the saying "expect the unexpected"? If you don't want to CYA because you think the chances of something happening are "none", then that's your prerogative. But don't look down on me because I do. BTW, if the offense touches the ball before it goes into the backcourt, after it has touched the defense and I have given the signal, then they should know it. Add emphasis on the word "should" if you wish. Kind of the same-difference, isn't it? |
Quote:
If the point is to give the offense an indication of whether they can go retrieve it in the backcourt, then what does it matter if the ball still has a frontcourt status after the deflection by the defense? The offense can always go retrieved the ball while it's in the frontcourt...it's when the ball is in the backcourt, when the offense may have any doubt (though I do agree that NFHS reasoning in that the offense was at a disadvantage and that this evens it out is silly...the signal is more for us to give information to a partner whom may be unsure of there was a tip...or it's to sell to the coach that there was a deflection, you saw it...no violation). |
Quote:
Nothing in my post was about looking down on you. The problem you have demonstrated on this forum consistently is that you are too worried about doing what is fair, rather than doing things as they are written in the rule book, case book, and mechanics manual. The rules, interpretations, and mechanics are not fair to both teams at all times, nor do they have to be. The rules make the game a fair game because both teams play by the same rules, interpretations and mechanics as long as the officials working the game enforce the rules and interpretations and utilize the mechanics as they are written without adding their own personal feelings about fairness. |
Quote:
I have been giving the new signal as soon as it is evident the ball can't be touched again in the front court. Normally this is as it crosses the division line. |
Quote:
PLEASE stop being motivated by a desire to instill your own brand of fairness between the offense and the defense. I can't be more direct than this --- that is quite simply NOT OUR JOB. If you're so worried about fairness perhaps you should consider that both teams are playing by the same rules. Team A has the same (perceived by you) advantages on offense that Team B will have. The rules-makers (in conjunction with coaches, who approve and suggest these changes) are tasked with the job of balancing defense vs offense - and it ebbs and flows over time. That is THEIR job. Please, PLEASE, do yours and not theirs. |
While I understand why you're saying that, this isn't about me instilling my personal beliefs regarding fairness. This is about upholding the spirit/reasoning for the rule, which comes from the NFHS... not me.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50am. |