View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 19, 2018, 10:27pm
Freddy Freddy is offline
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
Referee Magazine Concurrence

August issue of Referee magazine came today and included an article (pp.68,69) and five case plays to fully describe situations under 9-9-1. None of them gave any indication that NFHS is going as far as NCAA-M did with their backcourt rule. From this article, which included thanks to Theresia Wynns "for reviewing this information", we get the clear message that all they're really doing is retracting that previously re-released Interpretation. Four case plays are all very simple and standard and have nothing to do with this year's added EXCEPTION, and the fifth one says:

Play 5: Team A has the ball in the froncourt. A1's pass is deflected by B1 and is caught before it returns to the floor by A2, who is standing in the backcourt. Ruling 5: This is now a legal play, covered by the new exception approed by NFHS. Previously, this would have been a backcourt violation on team A because, by rule, when A2 touched the ball it still had frontcourt status, meaning team A was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the baccourt. Now, as soon as the ball crosses from the frontcourt back over the division line, even if it is airborne, team A may be the first to touch and retrieve the ball without penalty.

No language in the brief article nor any of the five case plays gives any indication that they're adopting the change that NCAA-M did last year. Only retracting that NFHS Interpretation.

I'd be surprised if any new addition to the Casebook or newly released Interpretation says anything different.

No, wait. I wouldn't be surprised.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
Reply With Quote