Differences of Opinion

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Camron and I have differed over this Ruling for years and I understand his position.
And yes, there was an NFHS Casebook Play or Pre-Season Rules Interpretation a few years ago, the logic the Rules Committees going back to the days of the NBCUSC is:

That A1's act of touching the ball in Team A's Backcourt combines both the LAST to touch in Team A's Front Court BEFOFRE the Ball obtained Backcourt status with being the FIRST to touch AFTER the Ball obtained Backcourt status. Meaning the LAST to touch in the Front Court and the FIRST to touch in the Back Court are simultaneous acts.

This is the interpretation for both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's college basketball when I played basketball in H.S. (I graduated from H.S. in 1969 and my H.S. coach was an OhioHSAA registered official from the late 1940's until he retired from coaching.) and that is the interpretation (re-enforced by the NFHS with its "recent" interpretation since I started officiating in 1971.

I know that the way the rule is written creates ambiguity at the least.

MTD, Sr.

[zm1283]

Here is what I've never understood about the interpretation that says this is a violation: If A is standing in the backcourt when he retrieves the ball, how is he the last to touch it in the frontcourt? I guess it's because the ball still has frontcourt status, so he touches it in the frontcourt and is obviously the first to touch it in the backcourt....

I have never called this a backcourt violation and have never seen it called as one.

[Camron Rust]

The problem with the interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense. The rule is designed to keep the offensive team from being able to use the backcourt area once they get it across the division line. If the defense gets involved in the play and directs the ball to that area of the court, the offense should be able to play the ball....whether it hits the ground first or not.

This really becomes apparent in a few situations.

A1 holding or dribbling the ball in the backcourt at the division line. B1, in the frontcourt, knocks the ball away (briefly touching the ball for a moment after A1 giving it frontcourt status) and off of A1's leg. Should that be a backcourt violation?

A1, in the backcourt near the division line, tries to throw a pass that is deflected right back to them by B1 who was in the frontcourt. Why should that be a violation?

Again, as worded, the rule just doesn't support the conclusion that before is the same as after. Before and After a specific event just can not be the same time. In fact, neither before nor after can be at the same time as the reference event itself. That is basic logic. Otherwise, as defender could obtain LGP after the shooter was airborne and claim he had it before.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with the interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense. The rule is designed to keep the offensive team from being able to use the backcourt area once they get it across the division line. If the defense gets involved in the play and directs the ball to that area of the court, the offense should be able to play the ball....whether it hits the ground first or not.

This really becomes apparent in a few situations.

A1 holding or dribbling the ball in the backcourt at the division line. B1, in the frontcourt, knocks the ball away (briefly touching the ball for a moment after A1 giving it frontcourt status) and off of A1's leg. Should that be a backcourt violation?

A1, in the backcourt near the division line, tries to throw a pass that is deflected right back to them by B1 who was in the frontcourt. Why should that be a violation?

Again, as worded, the rule just doesn't support the conclusion that before is the same as after. Before and After a specific event just can not be the same time. In fact, neither before nor after can be at the same time as the reference event itself. That is basic logic. Otherwise, as defender could obtain LGP after the shooter was airborne and claim he had it before.

These two examples are key, IMO. MTD must be willing to call those violations in order to say the OP is a violation.

Mark?

[Raymond]

My position has actually moved from violation to non-violation over the years.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by zm1283

If A is standing in the backcourt when he retrieves the ball, how is he the last to touch it in the frontcourt? I guess it's because the ball still has frontcourt status, so he touches it in the frontcourt and is obviously the first to touch it in the backcourt....

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!

[Robert E. Harrison]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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!

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)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

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.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron and I have differed over this Ruling for years and I understand his position.
And yes, there was an NFHS Casebook Play or Pre-Season Rules Interpretation a few years ago, the logic the Rules Committees going back to the days of the NBCUSC is:

That A1's act of touching the ball in Team A's Backcourt combines both the LAST to touch in Team A's Front Court BEFOFRE the Ball obtained Backcourt status with being the FIRST to touch AFTER the Ball obtained Backcourt status. Meaning the LAST to touch in the Front Court and the FIRST to touch in the Back Court are simultaneous acts.

This is the interpretation for both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's college basketball when I played basketball in H.S. (I graduated from H.S. in 1969 and my H.S. coach was an OhioHSAA registered official from the late 1940's until he retired from coaching.) and that is the interpretation (re-enforced by the NFHS with its "recent" interpretation since I started officiating in 1971.

I know that the way the rule is written creates ambiguity at the least.

MTD, Sr.

We have three distinct acts that must, by definition, occur in order rather than simultaneously for a violation to occur.
A. The ball is touched by A BEFORE it goes into the BC.
B. The ball goes into the backcourt.
C. The ball is touched by A AFTER it goes into the BC.

It is impossible for A and C to be the same act.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with the interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense. The rule is designed to keep the offensive team from being able to use the backcourt area once they get it across the division line. If the defense gets involved in the play and directs the ball to that area of the court, the offense should be able to play the ball....whether it hits the ground first or not.

This really becomes apparent in a few situations.

A1 holding or dribbling the ball in the backcourt at the division line. B1, in the frontcourt, knocks the ball away (briefly touching the ball for a moment after A1 giving it frontcourt status) and off of A1's leg. Should that be a backcourt violation?

A1, in the backcourt near the division line, tries to throw a pass that is deflected right back to them by B1 who was in the frontcourt. Why should that be a violation?

Again, as worded, the rule just doesn't support the conclusion that before is the same as after. Before and After a specific event just can not be the same time. In fact, neither before nor after can be at the same time as the reference event itself. That is basic logic. Otherwise, as defender could obtain LGP after the shooter was airborne and claim he had it before.

Originally Posted by Adam

These two examples are key, IMO. MTD must be willing to call those violations in order to say the OP is a violation.

Mark?

Originally Posted by Adam

We have three distinct acts that must, by definition, occur in order rather than simultaneously for a violation to occur.
A. The ball is touched by A BEFORE it goes into the BC.
B. The ball goes into the backcourt.
C. The ball is touched by A AFTER it goes into the BC.

It is impossible for A and C to be the same act.

I understand the logic that Camron is advocating and could easily be convinced to rewrite the rule to make Camron's position the rule and thereby repealing the current rules interpretation.

That said, what I have written earlier in this thread is and has been the NFHS and NCAA position for over fifty years, and the current rules interpretation supports their position.

Most of you know that I believe that rules interpretations should be rule based, but when the NFHS or NCAA issues a rules interpretation that must be followed until the NHFS and NCAA can be convinced to correct their error.

And I know how difficult that can be. Dick Knox (of the North CarolinaHSAA) was the NFHS Rules Committee Chairman and Mary Struckhoff was the Rules Editor, the NFHS issued a Pre-Season Interpretation that was not only incorrect, it used incorrect Rules references to support the interpretation; the Pre-Season Interpretation contradicted an existing Casebook Play which used the correct Rules references to support the Casebook Play. It took me a number emails between Dick and Mary and myself to convince Mary that the Pre-Season Interpretation was incorrect and an the Ruling changed and the correct Rules references listed.

That said, we have a Rule that can be ambiguous at best, a Rules Committee's philosophy that is over fifty years old, and a Rules Interpretation that supports the Rules Committee's philosophy.

Camron, if you want to write and rule that eliminates any confusion and overturns the current Rules Interpretation I am all for it and will be happy to contact the "big wigs" that I know in and effort to change it.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Most of you know that I believe that rules interpretations should be rule based, but when the NFHS or NCAA issues a rules interpretation that must be followed until the NHFS and NCAA can be convinced to correct their error.

And I know how difficult that can be. Dick Knox (of the North CarolinaHSAA) was the NFHS Rules Committee Chairman and Mary Struckhoff was the Rules Editor, the NFHS issued a Pre-Season Interpretation that was not only incorrect, it used incorrect Rules references to support the interpretation; the Pre-Season Interpretation contradicted an existing Casebook Play which used the correct Rules references to support the Casebook Play. It took me a number emails between Dick and Mary and myself to convince Mary that the Pre-Season Interpretation was incorrect and an the Ruling changed and the correct Rules references listed.

MTD, Sr.

To which Interpretation are you referring in the above passages?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

To which Interpretation are you referring in the above passages?

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

[Dave9819]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?