The rule doesn't need to be rewritten to support what I advocate. It already does...it references before and after with respect to the ball gaining backcourt status.

It would need to be rewritten only so that the interpretation doesn't turn thousands of years of mathematics upside down. Can you name a number that is both less than 0 and greater than 0? That is what it would take to make the interpretation agree with the rule.


Maybe the rule was once written to support that interpretation...I don't have books published in papyrus. If it was, it has long since been changed to its current form which no longer supports that interpretation.

I propose the rule as currently written. It is sufficiently clear.

Oh golly. I think it was in the early 2000's and the NFHS issued a Pre-Season Rules Interpretation with regard to the Shooter being fouled in the Act-of-Shooting that was completely incorrect. Tony would remember when Dick Knox was the Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. I cannot remember if it was before or after the MichiganHSAA was forced to switch girls' basketball to the Winter.

I emailed both Dick and Mary, and Dick realized the mistake immediately but Mary had to be pushed into accepting the error and a correction was issued before the start of the season.

MTD, Sr.

Found it. Not surprised as my experience with Mary over the past decade has been similar. She didn't really have a solid understanding of the principles upon which the rules were based and this led her to issue several strange or outright incorrect rulings during her tenure as editor.

2001-02 Interps

SITUATION 18: A1 is driving towards his/her basket with B1 following. A1 goes up for a lay-up. B1 goes up as well and commits basketball interference. After the basket interference, but before either player returns to the floor, B1 also fouls airborne shooter A1. RULING: The basket interference causes the ball to become dead immediately. Team A is awarded two points for B1’s basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1’s foul is ignored unless deemed unsporting or flagrant. (9-11; 6-7-9)

Note: The above interp (Situation 18) was revised on the FED website a few days after it was posted to recognize that a foul on an airborne shooter is not ignored just because the ball is dead.

So in that situation, Team A would be awarded 2 points due to the BI, and Team A would also have the ball for a spot throw-in due to the foul by B1, correct?

No. 2 points for A and 1 FT for A1.

It's a similar logic to a boundary line play. If A-1 has a throw-in, and B-2 (standing inbounds) immediately bats it back to A-1, A-1 caused the ball to go out of bounds. After B-2 batted it, the ball was still inbounds until A-1 touched it.

That said, I agree with Camron. NFHS 9-9-1 says "last touched or touched by the ball IN THE FRONTCOURT." Nowhere within 9-9 will you see the word "status."

Aside to Vic: Welcome to the forum!

No, an airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting. Also, oddly, if A1, as an airborne shooter, is the one who commits the foul and the foul occurs after a BI/GT violation by B, it is a PC foul, but A still receives two points. The violation occurred while the ball was live and thus must be fully punished. Though 5-1-2 prevents a goal from being scored if a PC foul occurs, the two points from the BI/GT violation do not constitute a goal, but merely a penalty for a violation. I believe B's throw-in would still be anywhere along the end line, per 7-5-7b (it says B would retain the privilege of running the end line if A commits a violation or CF before the throw-in ends; this PC foul is certainly before the end of the throw-in, but it's also necessarily before the beginning of the throw-in), unless somehow the OOB spot nearest the PC foul were somehow not on the end line, in which case it would be a designated-spot throw-in at that location.

The word status is in the casebook
 

9.9.1 SITUATION D: Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's
throw-in is deflected by B1; A2 jumps from Team A’s frontcourt, catches the ball
in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. A2 gains player and team control in the air after having left the floor from Team A’s frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt status. As soon as A2 lands in the backcourt, he/she has committed a backcourt
violation. The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in
ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-3)

Not comparable. The OP's play in question has the offensive player already in the backcourt; in this case, the A2 had frontcourt status when he caught the ball, then landed in the backcourt.

I think his only point was that "status" is in the case book, not that he was comparing the two plays.

The relevant play was an interpretation published for the 2007-2008 season.

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)

Mark, so let me ask, what would you rule in Camron's situations that present the exact same rules basis?

In-game, I would almost certainly not call a violation in this situation. Other than some interpretation published seven years ago, the rules just don't seem to support a BC violation here. Adding to that, I don't think any coach or spectator would expect a violation here. No one bats an eye if there's no whistle.

This seems to be a favorite question chosen by those writing state rules tests. Was on our state test a couple of years ago for about the second or third time since the interp came out a while back.
Not wishing to be over-critical . . .

-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation.

-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation.

-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation.

This . . .. . . was what they published so that no one would be able to say this: But alas, confusion still exists, and perhaps for good reason. I mean if the respected and regarded individuals posting above disagree with each other on this, that should really call for the NFHS to clean up this rule!

I wouldn't disagree either way. Just make it simple for all to immediately understand and accept. And give me a good basis for a correct rule interpretation.

The basis has been stated above already. Team A did not touch last in frontcourt, so it can't be a violation.

period