NCAA-M Backcourt Case Play Change

[SC Official]

Rut,

I know it’s a rule change and I quoted the exact text of the rule in my OP. My contention is that the A.R. has faulty logic. At what point does the defensive deflection no longer matter? The A.R. says that B1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt even though A2 had frontcourt status with control before the ball went into the backcourt.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Rut,

I know it’s a rule change and I quoted the exact text of the rule in my OP. My contention is that the A.R. has faulty logic. At what point does the defensive deflection no longer matter? The A.R. says that B1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt even though A2 had frontcourt status with control before the ball went into the backcourt.

But that is unfortunately what the new rule creates. This was kind of made clear this summer when the new rule was published and the comments from the committee on the subject. I went to a camp this summer and this rule was discussed by someone that was on the committee and this case play just restates the intent of the rule. I did not say I liked it or thought it was a good change. I believe we even discussed that here.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Rut,

I know it’s a rule change and I quoted the exact text of the rule in my OP. My contention is that the A.R. has faulty logic. At what point does the defensive deflection no longer matter? The A.R. says that B1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt even though A2 had frontcourt status with control before the ball went into the backcourt.

That case play is wrong. Hopefully someone has notified Art Hyland. The NCAA-Men's side had done a horrible job with these rule changes. I took the test already and there are at least 2, maybe 3, questions that need to be thrown out.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

That case play is wrong. Hopefully someone has notified Art Hyland. The NCAA-Men's side had done a horrible job with these rule changes. I took the test already and there are at least 2, maybe 3, questions that need to be thrown out.

Do you know this for a fact (i.e. has a higher-up told you this)? Not saying you are wrong at all and I want to agree with you.

This rule change is a bad one that was a solution in search of a problem.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Do you know this for a fact (i.e. has a higher-up told you this)? Not saying you are wrong at all and I want to agree with you.

This rule change is a bad one that was a solution in search of a problem.

The only higher up who counts is Art Hyland. I know the rules better than all my college supervisors. All my supervisors have 2-3 guys on their staff (or Al Battista) whom they go to for rules questions. When looking for confirmation from the NCAA, those questions go directly to Art Hyland.

It's wrong regardless of the rule change. That rule change has nothing to do with this play. There would need to be a rule change on when a throw-in ends for this case play to be valid.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The only higher up who counts is Art Hyland. I know the rules better than all my college supervisors. All my supervisors have 2-3 guys on their staff (or Al Battista) whom they go to for rules questions. When looking for confirmation from the NCAA, those questions go directly to Art Hyland.

It's wrong regardless of the rule change. That rule change has nothing to do with this play. There would need to be a rule change on when a throw-in ends for this case play to be valid.

By the logic in this A.R., B1 could deflect the ball in the frontcourt, and A2 could recover it on the frontcourt side of the division line and inadvertently step into the backcourt, and there would be no violation.

There has to be a point at which the deflection by the defense is no longer relevant. If A2 (re)gaining player control with frontcourt status doesn't cancel the relevance of the deflection, what does?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SC Official

By the logic in this A.R., B1 could deflect the ball in the frontcourt, and A2 could recover it on the frontcourt side of the division line and inadvertently step into the backcourt, and there would be no violation.

There has to be a point at which the deflection by the defense is no longer relevant. If A2 (re)gaining player control with frontcourt status doesn't cancel the relevance of the deflection, what does?

Maybe (and it's just a thought), the exception for a defensive player who jumps and then lands in his backcourt is extended to both teams once the defense touches / deflects the ball.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe (and it's just a thought), the exception for a defensive player who jumps and then lands in his backcourt is extended to both teams once the defense touches / deflects the ball.

You may be right in that maybe that’s the intent, but the NCAA didn’t rewrite those rules.

Who would've thought it would be the NCAA with the faulty backcourt play after all the issues in FED over the years?

[IncorrectCall]

Originally Posted by SC Official

By the logic in this A.R., B1 could deflect the ball in the frontcourt, and A2 could recover it on the frontcourt side of the division line and inadvertently step into the backcourt, and there would be no violation.

There has to be a point at which the deflection by the defense is no longer relevant. If A2 (re)gaining player control with frontcourt status doesn't cancel the relevance of the deflection, what does?

@ a NCAA Clinic, it was explained that if it was judged that CONTROL was gained while having front court status (and then going into the back court), then it would still be a violation.

Only applies to a deflection (by rule, ball is now loose), and a subsequent tap (non-controlled) by offensive team from front court to back court - offensive team can recover.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IncorrectCall

@ a NCAA Clinic, it was explained that if it was judged that CONTROL was gained while having front court status (and then going into the back court), then it would still be a violation.

Only applies to a deflection (by rule, ball is now loose), and a subsequent tap (non-controlled) by offensive team from front court to back court - offensive team can recover.

Unfortunately, that is not what A.R. 222 says. In A.R. 222, control is gained while airborne with FC status and then A2 lands in the BC.