Backcourt Violation Play

tref

HawkeyeCubP wrote
Technically not true anymore. NFHS rule now requires player control in front court for plays where ball touches a player in front court and returns too backcourt. NCAA doesn't. (I tripped on that earlier this season.)

So which one is it?

4-4-4
A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location.

9-9-1
A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

I could've sworn that they said adding team control on throw-ins was not meant to change any other aspects of the game except not awarding FTs when the offensive team fouls.

HawkeyeCubP wrote
I don't think so. A1 in backcourt pass into front court that is deflected off or by an A front court player back into back court and first touched there by A is not a BC violation in NFHS because of this editorial change. (Think A player that doesn't catch the pass or isn't expecting it near the division line.)

If thats not a violation, it will definitely be a technical foul as that is the expected call.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the "player & team control" part is in regards to a throw-in from OOB directly into the frontcourt.

HawkeyeCubP

AllPurposeGamer wrote
*9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt.

RULING: In (a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second count.

Weird. In my mind, this conflicts with the addition of "player" into 9-9-1.

APG

HawkeyeCubP wrote
Weird. In my mind, this conflicts with the addition of "player" into 9-9-1.

That's because the folks with NFHS worded the rule poorly. All you need to know that adding team control doesn't change how we call plays. We call everything the exact same way as we had before...the only exception is if the throw-in team commits a foul, no free throws are awarded.

HawkeyeCubP

tref wrote
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the "player & team control" part is in regards to a throw-in from OOB directly into the frontcourt.

That's what APG's saying, and what is probably, I guess, intended here, but the written rule contradicts the case 9.9.1.c. 9-9-1 does not mention throw-ins, so by my logic, it should apply to all backcourt situations - not just throw-ins.

tref

HawkeyeCubP wrote
That's what APG's saying, and what is probably, I guess, intended here, but the written rule contradicts the case 9.9.1.c. 9-9-1 does not mention throw-ins, so by my logic, it should apply to all backcourt situations - not just throw-ins.

By my logic, if you're going to add NCAA rule(s) to the HS game simply copy & paste their rule(s) word for word.
The Federation messed up here & thats why they sent the clarification out that stated the rule change is only related to not shooting FTs when the offensive team fouls.

HawkeyeCubP

So once again, the NFHS rule is written worse than the NCAA book. Are they afraid to copy the rule wording when making rules identical, for fear of copyright infringement? I don't live in an NFHS state anymore. Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

(Thanks APG)

tref

HawkeyeCubP wrote
Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

You're IAABO correct? Board 4?
This is what was sent to me by our State Rules Interpreter (DS)

Directly from the NFHS 2011-12 Rule change powerpoint regarding the team control during the throwin change: Only team-control fouls occurring during a throw-in were affected by this change.The change does NOT affect any of the following rules:
• Three seconds in the lane
• Traveling/Dribbling
• Backcourt
• Alternating-possession throw-in rules

Minor edits occurred to some of these rules for clarification.

I dont believe they admit guilt, they just clarify 😀

APG

HawkeyeCubP wrote
So once again, the NFHS rule is written worse than the NCAA book. Are they afraid to copy the rule wording when making rules identical, for fear of copyright infringement? I don't live in an NFHS state anymore. Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

(Thanks APG)

There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

bob jenkins

HawkeyeCubP wrote
Weird. In my mind, this conflicts with the addition of "player" into 9-9-1.

Of course it does. But, as has been explained here (and elsewhere) approximately 87 times, it doesn't mean what it says. The play is a BC violation.

zm1283

Scrapper1 wrote
Not true. Backcourt rules changed quite a bit, causing at least one major discrepancy.

How so? What about a backcourt violation changed?

AllPurposeGamer wrote
There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

This is what I was talking about.

tref

AllPurposeGamer wrote
There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

zm1283 wrote
This is what I was talking about.

Things that make you go hmmmm...

Raymond

HawkeyeCubP wrote
?
9-9-1 doesn't mention throw-ins.

Easy fix to the poor wording:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control ~~in the frontcourt~~ if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Cobra

bob jenkins wrote
The first two times he touched the ball, it was a fumble. The third was a dribble.

One can't fumble the ball until player control has been established. What happened in the video would be best described as a muff or bobble.

Scrapper1

zm1283 wrote
How so? What about a backcourt violation changed?

Read 9-9-1 from last year and this year. Then look at the case plays for 9.9.1. This has been pointed out numerous times on the forum. They changed the backcourt rule so that it now contradicts a case play, but they want us to rule the way the case play says.

Camron Rust

BadNewsRef wrote
(Sorry, but don't know how to get the "strike-through" font.)

TIP: around the text, put < STRIKE> and < /STRIKE> (minus the spaces inside the braces that I put in to make it show)

to get ~~and~~

bob jenkins

Cobra wrote
One can't fumble the ball until player control has been established. What happened in the video would be best described as a muff or bobble.

Good point. And, I agree, the words matter.

Welpe

Camron Rust wrote
TIP: around the text, put < STRIKE> and < /STRIKE> (minus the spaces inside the braces that I put in to make it show)

to get ~~and~~

< s > < /s > Also works

Snaqs is an ~~instigator~~ agitator.

Adam

Welpe wrote
< s > < /s > Also works

Snaqs is an ~~instigator~~ agitator.

Hey, ~~what did I do?~~ never mind.

Raymond

BadNewsRef wrote
Easy fix to the poor wording:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control ~~in the frontcourt~~ if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

And as I've mentioned in other posts the same wording needs to be added to the 10-second backcourt rule concerning when the count should start after a throw-in.

Meaning if a throw-in is tipped/muffed in/into the backcourt the 10-second count doesn't start until player control is established.

Unless of course the 10-second count should start immediately when the ball gains backcourt status after a throw-in. No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in. Even asked Al Battista once in camp and he kinded hemmed and hawwed an answer and couldn't give me a clear rules reference, a definite rarity for him.

Eastshire

BadNewsRef wrote
And as I've mentioned in other posts the same wording needs to be added to the 10-second backcourt rule concerning when the count should start after a throw-in.

Meaning if a throw-in is tipped/muffed in/into the backcourt the 10-second count doesn't start until player control is established.

Unless of course the 10-second count should start immediately when the ball gains backcourt status after a throw-in. No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in. Even asked Al Battista once in camp and he kinded hemmed and hawwed an answer and couldn't give me a clear rules reference, a definite rarity for him.

What they want is clear. The only change desired from last year's rules is the bonus for fouls committed by the throwing-in team during the throw-in. Don't start the count until player control is first established in the backcourt.

« Previous Page Next Page »