Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
That's a sloppy way of trying to make the BC rule stay the same in light of the TC rule change.
As Nevada pointed out, this change in wording affects plays that were violations under the old wording, and the committee made it clear their intent was not to change the BC rule.
|
Okay, I should have written "the new wording of the rule (9-9-1) requires both PLAYER and TEAM control" as there is no "new" rule, the NFHS simply changed existing ones.
The exact text of the NFHS in the front of the new case book is "The change
primarily affects how foul penalties will be administered." Clearly "primarily" is not "exclusively" so the NFHS does allow for other implications of these changes. One of those is the impact upon backcourt violations.
Please see 4.12.2 Situation part (b) ruling for this sentence, "There is no backcourt violation in (b)
since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A's frontcourt before the ball went into Team A's backcourt."
Let's hope for an internet interpretation to clarify this newly created mess which Mary left us before departing.
