Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Jurassic, while you could be right the case play you cited doesn't disprove the play at all. The case only addresses when the throwin exception ends. It doesn't address when the defensive player's exception ends or who a defensive player is. That's the exception he's applying. Of course, that's an entirely different question than claiming that it is legal under the throwin excpetion.
|
I agree, Camron. It seems to me that Jurassic is the one who doesn't understand the point which is being debated here.
Tony has always maintained that there are
THREE distinct exceptions to the backcourt rule. They are the three which were enumerated as such in the old text before the rule was rewritten.
He has also maintained that the when the NFHS reworded the rule, they did not intend to alter its meaning or application. I argued last season that the NFHS unintentionally altered the rule with the editorial rewrite creating a number of new situations which were exempt from backcourt violations, and thus we had to alter our application of it. Due to the new case play that seems to have been incorrect while Tony's position has now been supported by the new case play.
Therefore, if we are to understand that there are still three ways in which a player may be granted an exception to committing a backcourt violation, and it doesn't matter under which exception he qualifies, we have to check for all three of them before calling a violation.
All of us agree that the throw-in has ended and thus the exception granted to any player for violating after catching the ball "during a throw-in" clearly does not apply. All of us also agree that this action does not take place "during a jump ball" and so this exception can't apply. However, it is unclear if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" during this scenario and thus granted an exception for that. JR is failing to see that argument. He seems to be lumping all of the exceptions into one big exception due to the rewrite, when, if I understand Tony and the NFHS correctly, he should instead be considering them separately.