Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Thank you for posting these.
And, BOO to the NFHS for doubling down on the interp in play 7.
|
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
The part in red can't be true. Coach doesn't lose the coaching box because of a warning, does he?
|
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Maybe I'm having a brain cramp, but how is this a violation? How does this not fall under 9-9-3, which allows a player on defense to secure the ball in the air from his/her frontcourt and land in the backcourt?
Am I missing something obvious? The tip by B2 ends the throw-in, but doesn't end the exception for a player on defense. Does it? I feel like this has to be something obvious that I'm overlooking.
|
I agree with you. This is a defensive player. The tip doesn't change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
This play has been in there before. The "defense" isn't the "defense" until the "offense" has player control inbounds. (We had a long discussion on here about that once a long long time ago). The only exception that's avaialable on this play is the throw-in exception, and that only applies to the first person to touch / catch the throw-in.
|
Yes, we had a long discussion of what constituted a "defensive" player during situations without team control. I took the position that team control was required to have an offense and a defense. At that time, NFHS rules did not have team control during a throw-in for the throwing team. This has since been added to the rules in a change.
However, I also seem to recall that the language previously used in the text of the backcourt rule was different. It said something about "a player from a team not in control may..." If that was the case, then B2 would not have committed a violation under that wording and since the NFHS stated that it was not seeking to alter any backcourt rulings when adding team control during a throw-in, the same ruling should apply today.
I will need to do a little research before giving my final opinion on this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Agree...posting it again doesn't make it any more correct than it was the first time.
|
Agreed with you then and still agree with you now. BEFORE does not mean SIMULTANEOUSLY.