[walt]

This video was made for IAABO and the NFHS by a guy who is an IAABO National Interpreter and is a member of the NFHS rules committee. I spoke to him again last night and he said there are still people on the NFHS rules committee who believe this previous rule interpretation should stand:

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).

The video is basically the play addressed by the previous interpretation except instead of the ball bouncing it is deflected directly in the air by the defense and A2 is still in the backcourt.

He told me there was almost two hours of discussion about the wording of the "new interpretation" and what is written is what was begrudgingly agreed upon. He told me the NCAAM backcourt rule was discussed but the rules committee was not willing to go that far "yet" although he believes that is ultimately where the NFHS will end up. He said the only difference this year is the play in the video should no longer be ruled a backcourt violation. He also said in all the people he's discussed this with in IAABO and the NFHS, no one could ever remember seeing such a play or the play discussed in the previous interpretation, in reality, ruled a backcourt violation.

He also told me he has been tasked by Theresia Wynns with drafting a new case play for distribution at some point in the "near future."