Backcourt Violation Play

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.

Raymond

Eastshire wrote
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.

I know what they FED wants is clear, no changes in rulings based on the new team control/throw-in rule other than TC fouls. I've been part of the discussions since the new team control rules were brought up last year.

That's not what my post is about:

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
I know what they FED wanst is clear, no changes in rulings based on the new team control/throw-in rule other than TC fouls. I've been part of the discussions since the new team control rules were brought up last year.

That's not what my post is about:

BadNewsRef wrote
No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in.

I'm confused as to why you have been clearly answered as to what they want but not clearly answered as to what they intend, as I'm fairly sure these are the same thing.

Raymond

Eastshire wrote
I'm confused as to why you have been clearly answered as to what they want but not clearly answered as to what they intend, as I'm fairly sure these are the same thing.

Easiest way for me to answer is this: show me in the rule or case book when the rulesmakers (NCAA and NFHS) want you to start your 10-second count. Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

I already know what the NFHS wants in regards to the effect of TC on a throw-in as I provided new wording for 9-9-1 to correct the conflict between the currently worded rule for a backcourt violation which conflicts with the intent of the new rule. I have read the powerpoint slides. I'm talking about wording in the rule book.

HawkeyeCubP

BadNewsRef wrote
Easiest way for me to answer is this: show me in the rule or case book when the rulesmakers (NCAA and NFHS) want you to start your 10-second count. Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

I already know what the NFHS wants in regards to the effect of TC on a throw-in as I provided new wording for 9-9-1 to correct the conflict between the currently worded rule for a backcourt violation which conflicts with the intent of the new rule. I have read the powerpoint slides. I'm talking about wording in the rule book.

(I haven't seen prior discussions on this on the forum, so I apologize if I'm repeating things already said.) The NCAA written rule makes sense, IMO, but I suppose both could be worded differently to say something like

HawkeyeCubP has great ideas wrote
"An inbounds player, and subsequently his/her team, shall not be in continuous control..."

I agree that the NFHS rule doesn't apply completely anymore. And the case plays, I agree, imply that the count could start on the touch. All they need to do is either reword 9-8 and/or add a case play that involves a throw-in first touched in the backcourt.

« Previous Page Next Page »