Differences of Opinion

[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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dave9819

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.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Dave9819

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, 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[La Rikardo]

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.

[Freddy]

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 . . .

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

In-game, I would almost certainly not call a violation in this situation.

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

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

I don't think any coach or spectator would expect a violation here.

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

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

No one bats an eye if there's no whistle.

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

This . . .

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

...some interpretation published seven years ago...

. . . was what they published so that no one would be able to say this:

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

...the rules just don't seem to support a BC violation here.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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

[Nevadaref]

How's this Freddy?
That situation is not a violation BY RULE.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How's this Freddy?
That situation is not a violation BY RULE.

If your response had a "Like" button I would click on it.
But those who answered accordingly on our state's rules test got it wrong.

If I can't point to the rule or case play in the current year's books, I'm not following it.