Differences of Opinion
 

Hello Fellow Officials

Please chime in:

A1 has ball batted away in the frontcourt by B1. Before the ball hits the floor in the backcourt A1 goes into the backcourt and catches the ball. (again before it hits the floor in the backcourt)

Correct call please....I maybe interpreting it wrong.

Vic

It is a violation. The ball has FC status until it hits the court or a player in the back court. A2 causes the ball to have BC status. Had the player let it hit the court it would of been legal.

The rules state that it is a violation only if A was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it obtained backcourt status. In your play, A1 gave the ball backcourt status but B1 was the last to touch it prior to that point. Therefore, it can't be a violation. Causing the ball to have backcourt status is not a violation....only being the last to touch BEFORE and the first to touch AFTER. A1's touch, being the event that gives the ball backcourt status just can not occur before itself.

However, there was a play published 2-3 years ago (situation 11 IIRC) that said it was a violation.

I choose to follow the rule.

?? If the defender was last to touch in the front court, isn't it a completely legal play for A1 to recover in the backcourt regardless of whether the ball tocuhes down there first?

It's not a violation to cause the ball to have BC status. If what you said was true, you would have an immediate violation as soon as A threw any ball into the backcourt.

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.

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.

I understand what sniper was saying and what Mark is claiming about the touch being simultaneously the last front court and the first back court touch. . However, i agree with Camron that the rule itself shows that this isn't a violation. It uses the word BEFORE. "last to touch the ball BEFORE it went into the back court." When A touched this ball while standing in the back court, that touch put it in the back court. what was the touch before that one? Bs. if you say the touch is simultaneously the last and the first you are taking the word BEFORE out of the rule.
also, the rule definitions also show us that the ball is either IN the front court or IN the back court. one or the other. there is no simultaneous provision in the definitions, the rules etc. i have seen many case interps come out just dead wrong….

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. :D

Because A1 established his position in the backcourt before touching the ball, he is not the last player to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Therefore, no violation has occurred.

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.

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

Mark?

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

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.

To which Interpretation are you referring in the above passages?