NCAA-M Backcourt Case Play Change

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm having trouble with this. A2 gained player control with frontcourt status after the B1 deflection. But this is still supposed to be ruled as legal? How can B1 be responsible for the ball having backcourt status when A2 had player control in the frontcourt after the deflection? If you gain player control with one foot on the ground in the frontcourt and then put the other foot down in the backcourt is that a violation?

I'm sort of with you. I get the intent, but I think the language in the new rule needs to clarify how the throw-in exception is expanded by it. Right now that's not clear, so all we have is an interpretation that's not well supported.

I wouldn't be terribly upset if this rule got adopted by NFHS. First to touch, last to touch can sometimes be a tough and contentious thing to officiate. It would be easier in my head to think, "Deflection? Ok, let's see where PC gets reestablished and go from there."



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

i'm sort of with you. I get the intent, but i think the language in the new rule needs to clarify how the throw-in exception is expanded by it. Right now that's not clear, so all we have is an interpretation that's not well supported.

I wouldn't be terribly upset if this rule got adopted by nfhs. First to touch, last to touch can sometimes be a tough and contentious thing to officiate. It would be easier in my head to think, "deflection? Ok, let's see where pc gets reestablished and go from there."



sent from my iphone using tapatalk

+1

[SC Official]

I'd rather the FED not mess with this as they've already proven they have a tough time with backcourt violations as they pertain to team control.