[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9-3-3: Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they are the first player to touch the ball after returning to the court or if they left the court to avoid a violation. Rationale: Allows a player to step out of bounds if they gain no advantage and penalizes a team only if they gain an advantage by leaving the court and returning to avoid a violation or to be the first to touch the ball.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I'm a little confused how this would apply for players whose momentum carries them out, and then they are able to re-establish inbounds and be the first to touch the ball. Is this no longer allowed?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This rule is for a player who steps out of bounds of his own volition (or deliberately). Players who leave due to momentum or saving a ball will still be treated the same way and are not subject to this rule.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. There's an "or" in this new rule, thus two independent clauses.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Here is the NCAA Men's verbiage, which accounts for "own volition" and momentum: Rule 9 Section 3 Player Out of Bounds A player who steps out of bounds under the player's own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation. A player whose momentum causes that player to go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds if that player reestablishes one foot inbounds prior to touching the ball.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Raymond's post has me re-thinking my post. I wonder if the NFHS is trying to duplicate the NCAA rule? If so, it needs to do a better job with the new NFHS rule language.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

"Hey ref he can't be the first to touch it!" ... Now that rules citation provided a clear and comprehensive coverage for guidance on that type of action and all of its manifestations. Maybe future revisions of my NF will include the same, hopefully.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do we really believe that all pertinent questions asked in this thread will be fully answered?

We've seen this NFHS rule "language" issue in the past, independent clauses (that can stand alone) with the coordinating conjunction "or" in the rule "language", making it difficult to fully understand without knowing purpose and intent.

Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they are the first player to touch the ball after returning to the court.

Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they left the court to avoid a violation.

Of course, we also have a dependent marker word, "unless", that can make an independent clause into a dependent clause.

Where's my high school English teacher, Mr, Baumgartner, when I need him?

Did the NFHS intend to duplicate the NCAA rule?

If so, it needs to do a better job with the new NFHS rule language.

We'll probably have to wait for the actual rule language or interpretations to see what the NFHS actually intends here.