[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again I do not get why people think this is about one interpretation.

Again:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Please offer how the NFHS rule change impacts a play other than the "unusual interpretation".

Originally Posted by Freddy

It can't. This wording won't allow any change but for that misguided 2006-07 and 2017-18 Interpretation: "An EXCEPTION added to the backcourt violation (9-9-1): To ensure that an offensive team is not unfairly penalized when the ball is deflected by the defense from the frontcourt to the backcourt. This exception allows the offense to recover the ball (that still has frontcourt status) in the backcourt without penalty." ("Basketball Comments on the Rules", May 17, 2018). By stating that they're applying this only to a deflected ball "that still has frontcourt status," this change cannot go as far as the NCAA-M did as their backcourt rule was revised last year to say, "Art. 5. A pass or any other loose ball in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt."

Originally Posted by Freddy

The quote from the later released "Comment..." apparently answers that. The deflection does take place "in" the frontcourt and the frontcourt status of the ball remains when it's touched by an offensive player who then is standing in the backcourt. That's the same condition expressed in that "situation 7" you cite.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are more kinds of deflection than just the one in that interpretation.

... that are already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules.

Please cite one type of deflection that isn't already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules, including the new rule.