Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
Tony, I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I'm just trying to understand. I always thought the exception was based not on the fact of the throw-in but on the lack of team control.
|
rainmaker,
I believe that I adequately described the crux of the debate in post #5. You will see that I even accurately predicted Tony's answers therein (except for the final question, but he agreed with my answer).
Tony takes the position that it is not the lack of team control BEFORE the player catches the ball that allows the exception, but the fact that the play occurs during three specific events of a basketball game, namely a throw-in, a jump ball, or a defensive player stealing the ball.
This is because of the old wording of the rule. It 2002-03 the backcourt rule was structured as 9-1, 9-2, exception 1, exception 2, note. In 2003-04 one of the "Major Editorial Changes" was "9-3-3 New
Article was added to replace the previous exceptions and note." So the rule now has the form 9-1, 9-2, 9-3.
Tony's logic is that since the NFHS only made an editorial change and not a rule change, they did not intend to alter the meaning of the rule in any way. Therefore, despite the new structure, the rule is still the same as it was back in the 2002-03 season.
Contrast that with the stance that I take that we need to enforce the rules as written. It is unfortunate that the NFHS made an editorial change that had unintended consequences, but they did. It happens from time to time.
The new form and language makes the rule more inclusive and legalizes plays that weren't legal before. Why? Because of the principles of English grammar, sentence structure, and the meaning of words in a parenthetical. In other words that is what it says when a reasonable person reads the words as they are currently printed.
The result is that any play in which there is no team control prior to the player who jumped from his frontcourt catching the ball is now legal. Tony disagrees with that sentence and he has solid reasoning for doing so.
Now you must pick how you interpret the rule as currently formulated.
The BktBallRef interpretation or the Nevadaref interpretation have different consequences when calling the game.
For example, for the play about which you inquired (which incidently was already posted by Tony in post #17 of the thread
):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
So here's another sitch:
If the ball is shot, misses and is being tipped around with no one in control, and it goes flying toward the other end of the court, and A1 jumps from A's FC, catches the ball in mid-air, and lands in the BC, is that a violation? When he jumped there was no FC or BC, because there was no team control. So when is his FC or BC status determined?
|
The BktBallRef interpretation gives: Violation, the action of A1 jumping from his frontcourt did not occur during a throw-in, jump ball, or while he was a defensive player. Therefore, despite the fact that there was no team control during this time, no exception is granted under 9-9-3 and the player has violated per 9-9-1.
The Nevadaref interpretation gives: Legal play, A1 was "a player from the team not in control" when he jumped from his frontcourt to catch the ball because team control ended with the try for goal and had yet to be established by either team following the try. Unless A1 is a player from the team in control, then he must be considered a player from the team not in control. Therefore, 9-9-3 applies to him and he is permitted to land in his backcourt.
(BTW, strictly speaking, when A1 jumped there was no team control, but there was FC and BC status for both the ball and the player per 4-4-3 and 4-35-3. As soon as A1 catches the ball, there is both player and team control and the ball's status becomes the same as that of the player per 4-4-1+2.)
So you can think about this and decide for yourself how to call it, or you can check with your state rules interpreter and get an official ruling that applies in your location. Best wishes.