The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Backcourt ruling? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/97183-backcourt-ruling.html)

Mo-Money Mon Feb 03, 2014 09:54pm

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.

just another ref Mon Feb 03, 2014 09:58pm

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.

Mo-Money Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:03pm

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.

deecee Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo-Money (Post 921210)
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.

Who was the last to touch the ball in the FC? The defense. A player cannot be FC and BC at the same time.

BryanV21 Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:36pm

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.

Camron Rust Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo-Money (Post 921210)
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:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 921211)
Who was the last to touch the ball in the FC? The defense. A player cannot be FC and BC at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921214)
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.

All of you are making the same error.

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.

BryanV21 Tue Feb 04, 2014 01:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 921224)
All of you are making the same error.

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.

Could you explain a play in which the wording changes the result of the play? I ask because I have a violation in this scenario as well, but understand that my wording for having a violation is incorrect.

And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening.

Camron Rust Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921226)
Could you explain a play in which the wording changes the result of the play? I ask because I have a violation in this scenario as well, but understand that my wording for having a violation is incorrect.

And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening.

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.

Mo-Money Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:34am

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?

Camron Rust Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo-Money (Post 921232)
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?

FC status. Yes (which means the 10-count is over).

Violation, No, since B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backourt status....and the 10-count would start again.

PG_Ref Tue Feb 04, 2014 08:09am

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)

Adam Tue Feb 04, 2014 09:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 921241)
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)

By rule? No, it's not. By interp, it is. The interp actually flies against the rule, though (as opposed to working to clarify an otherwise ambiguous rule).

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.

BatteryPowered Tue Feb 04, 2014 09:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 921233)
FC status. Yes (which means the 10-count is over).

Violation, No, since B1 was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backourt status....and the 10-count would start again.

I have a violation. The ball never gained backcourt status. It was caught in the backcourt before it touced the ground (court). In essence, A took the ball into the backcourt.

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?

Adam Tue Feb 04, 2014 09:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered (Post 921245)
I have a violation. The ball never gained backcourt status. It was caught in the backcourt before it touced the ground (court). In essence, A took the ball into the backcourt.

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?

The rules are not the same. It is a violation to cause the ball to gain OOB status. It is not a violation to cause the ball to gain BC status.

bob jenkins Tue Feb 04, 2014 09:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921226)
Could you explain a play in which the wording changes the result of the play? I ask because I have a violation in this scenario as well, but understand that my wording for having a violation is incorrect.

And it's late, so my brain has already shut off for the evening.

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.

BryanV21 Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 921230)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 921247)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 921241)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 921265)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 01:15pm

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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 01:48pm

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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 921230)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921275)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 921277)
A1 giving the ball a backcourt status is not a violation.

I don't recall saying Backcourt Status Violation.

APG Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921281)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921275)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 921284)
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.:rolleyes:

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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:35pm

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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 921288)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 02:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 921288)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 921284)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:13pm

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.

Toren Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 921295)
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.:D

Adam Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921296)
And sometimes it is.:D

Never without any further action. :)

Welpe Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921296)
And sometimes it is.:D

When?

Toren Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 921299)
When?

4-43-3 c

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

Adam Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921300)
But let's not digress...

Too late. :)

Welpe Tue Feb 04, 2014 03:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921300)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 04:42pm

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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 05:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo-Money (Post 921307)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 05:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo-Money (Post 921307)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 05:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921311)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 05:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 921312)
I've not seen those there state that.

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

Camron Rust Tue Feb 04, 2014 06:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921315)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 06:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren (Post 921311)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921271)
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 Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:45pm

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

BryanV21 Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 921326)
The tipped signal should be given once the ball is deflected by the defense and the ball is in the backcourt.

If we waited until the ball was actually in the backcourt then the offense could very well be at a disadvantage, as they would have "held up" when going after the ball to avoid the violation. Which seems to contradict the reason for giving the signal in the first place.

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.

APG Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921330)
If we waited until the ball was actually in the backcourt then the offense could very well be at a disadvantage, as they would have "held up" when going after the ball to avoid the violation. Which seems to contradict the reason for giving the signal in the first place.

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.

I can't tell the offense if they can go into the backcourt until I'm sure that the ball was tipped and the defense was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt...if you simply do it on the deflection, the offense could still be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt...and then they're going to see you doing your signal...then going to be confused when you (hopefully ;)) call the violation.

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.

BryanV21 Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 921332)
I can't tell the offense if they can go into the backcourt until I'm sure that the ball was tipped and the defense was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt...if you simply do it on the deflection, the offense could still be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt...and then they're going to see you doing your signal...then going to be confused when you (hopefully ;)) call the violation.

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.

I can see the offense running to the ball which is headed towards the backcourt, and slowing up because they know there's a good chance they will end up in the backcourt once they touch it. And while slowing up, the defense has a chance to get to the ball first... knowing that whether they touch it or not there will not be a violation on them.

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.

johnny d Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921335)
I can see the offense running to the ball which is headed towards the backcourt, and slowing up because they know there's a good chance they will end up in the backcourt once they touch it. And while slowing up, the defense has a chance to get to the ball first... knowing that whether they touch it or not there will not be a violation on them.

Did you ever play competitive basketball? If so, how many times did you slow down when in pursuit of the ball because you were afraid of a backcourt violation? Especially when the defensive team is in pursuit as well, trying to get the ball and start a fast break. My guess would be none after 6th grade when your coach told you to get the ball and not worry about a backcourt violation. The reasoning behind this new mechanic is a load of crap. Players were not slowing down their pursuit of the ball before this mechanic and they are not waiting to see if we give this signal now, before they decide whether or not to pursue the ball.

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.

BryanV21 Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 921342)
Did you ever play competitive basketball? If so, how many times did you slow down when in pursuit of the ball because you were afraid of a backcourt violation? Especially when the defensive team is in pursuit as well, trying to get the ball and start a fast break. My guess would be none after 6th grade when your coach told you to get the ball and not worry about a backcourt violation. The reasoning behind this new mechanic is a load of crap. Players were not slowing down their pursuit of the ball before this mechanic and they are not waiting to see if we give this signal now, before they decide whether or not to pursue the ball.

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.

What are respectful way to respond to a genuine inquiry. :rolleyes:

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?

APG Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921344)
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?

While johnny d was a little brash in his post, he's absolutely right in that you'll look silly giving the tipped signal here...and then calling a backcourt violation.

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).

johnny d Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921344)

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.


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.

Eastshire Wed Feb 05, 2014 08:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 921342)
Did you ever play competitive basketball? If so, how many times did you slow down when in pursuit of the ball because you were afraid of a backcourt violation? Especially when the defensive team is in pursuit as well, trying to get the ball and start a fast break. My guess would be none after 6th grade when your coach told you to get the ball and not worry about a backcourt violation. The reasoning behind this new mechanic is a load of crap. Players were not slowing down their pursuit of the ball before this mechanic and they are not waiting to see if we give this signal now, before they decide whether or not to pursue the ball.

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.

I see the offense slow up on potential backcourt violations frequently up to and including JV games. They shouldn't do that, since strategically it's better to violate as close to the division line as possible rather than allow the defense to recover, but they do.

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.

MD Longhorn Wed Feb 05, 2014 09:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921344)
What are respectful way to respond to a genuine inquiry. :rolleyes:

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?

Perhaps his tone was more aggressive than needed... but we're kind of back to what you just apologized for.

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.

BryanV21 Wed Feb 05, 2014 01:25pm

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.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1