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?

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

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.

Ignorance Is Bliss (Thomas Gray) ...
 

There are a lot of important, but very specific, caseplays out there. It's one thing for an inexperienced official not knowing about them, but it's another thing for an experienced official, who knows the specific case play, to intentionally ignore these one-time-published-somewhere-official caseplays.

I recall that it took several years for the prohibition against lights in shoes to show up in the rulebook and/or casebook, but once it showed up as an annual interpretation, with no other rulebook, and/or casebook citation, I enforced it.

The interpretations just don't disappear after a given year. And there's a list every season -- they don't all end up in the rule/case book.

Thanks for your advice guys!