Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
Yes, I think the NFHS, with the addition of their new "EXCEPTION" is merely retracting the Interpretation that they published back in 2006-07 and then again in 2017-18:
SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards 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)
Though many may have hoped they'd follow suit and adopt what the NCAA-M did, they didn't. Their "Exception" covers something different than NFHS.
Right?
|
Why would you create an entire exception to the rule, just to change one interpretation that was used last year as a clarification last year with backcourt rules?
I guess I am not getting why is all that necessary for an interpretation that hardly anyone knew was even there in the first place. This could be done with an editorial change.
And 9-9-1 says nothing about the interpretation that we referenced, that was only in the casebook.
Peace