Backcourt Violation Play

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.

zm1283

Scrapper1 wrote
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.

We are talking about different things then. When I said that "nothing has changed", I mean that nothing in the way that we call backcourt violations has changed. I realize there is a contradiction, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

Raymond

HawkeyeCubP wrote
...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.

Basically that is my point. Now that they have to fix the wording for backcourt violations they can also add similar wording to the 10-second backcourt rule to make it clear player control must occur at some point before a 10-second violation can occur.

10-second backcourt violations, backcourt violations, and 3-second violations all need to have player control established at some point prior to the violation, so keep the wording consistent.

Welpe

Sometimes I think the Fed did this just to watch us all gnash our teeth.

mbyron

Welpe wrote
Sometimes I think the Fed did this just to watch us all gnash our teeth.

Not so. The change to player control during a throw-in was welcome. The editorial changes to other rules to accommodate that change were inept and clumsy, not malicious.

Welpe

I was being facetious. It seems to happen almost every year in at least one sport so I figured they just enjoyed doing it. 🙂

BillyMac

BadNewsRef wrote
3-second violations all need to have player control established at some point prior to the violation, so keep the wording consistent.

We can call a three second violation during an interrupted dribble in the frontcourt. No player control there.

BillyMac

BadNewsRef wrote
Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

bob jenkins

BillyMac wrote
A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

Really?

It's PC vs. TC Billy.

APG

BillyMac wrote
We can call a three second violation during an interrupted dribble in the frontcourt. No player control there.

That wasn't the point of BNR's post...

BillyMac

BadNewsRef wrote
Player control in the backcourt is not required to begin a 10-second count in all situations.

NFHS: 9-8:

BillyMac wrote
A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball
which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

bob jenkins wrote
Really? It's PC vs. TC Billy.

Now you guys have got me totally confused, which, by the way, really isn't much of an accomplishment.

I have always started my ten second count when an offensive player gets control of the ball in the backcourt. I did not start my count if a player simply touched the inbounds pass without gaining player control.

I did, however, continue my ten second count when an offensive player, in the backcourt, initially gained player control (see above paragraph) and then that player, or another offensive player, lost player control, but with his team still in team control.

What am I getting wrong here? Have I actually been doing this wrong for over thirty years?

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
We can call a three second violation during an interrupted dribble in the frontcourt. No player control there.

AllPurposeGamer wrote
That wasn't the point of BNR's post.

Didn't want to confuse the rookies.

bob jenkins

BillyMac wrote
NFHS: 9-8:

Now you guys have got me totally confused, which, by the way, really isn't much of an accomplishment.

I have always started my ten second count when an offensive player gets control of the ball in the backcourt. I did not start my count if a player simply touched the inbounds pass without gaining player control.

I did, however, continue my ten second count when an offensive player, in the backcourt, initially gained player control (see above paragraph) and then that player, or another offensive player, lost player control, but with his team still in team control.

What am I getting wrong here? Have I actually been doing this wrong for over thirty years?

What if the pass from the FC is tipped by B and goes to the BC? Is there PC in the BC? Should you start your count?

« Previous Page Next Page »