NCAA-M Backcourt Case Play Change
 

Rule 9-12.5 (new this year)
A pass or any other loose ball in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

A.R. 222
The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his front court near the division line.
1. A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with one or both feet in the backcourt.
RULING 1: Legal play. Since a Team B player deflected A1’s inbounds pass, when A2 catches the ball in the air and lands with one or both feet in the backcourt, B1’s deflection caused the ball to go into Team A’s backcourt, and a Team A player is permitted to be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt.”




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?

After reading A.R. 222

This may be another rule different than in high school (where I officiate), or I'm reading your post wrong, but when did A1 have player control? It sounds like A1 was throwing the ball in, but after that he had nothing to do with the play.

And team control during a throw-in is for offensive foul purposes only, not for how you determine a backcourt violation.

I edited the last paragraph of my OP from A1 to A2.

This A.R. is not relevant to high school. In NCAA-M the rule is no longer “last to touch, first to touch” if there is a deflection by the defense.

And my OP said nothing about team control during the throw-in.

I thought something was different upon reading it again after I posted, hence my own edit. I got what you're saying now, thanks.

Hooray. Now we just need to get the NFHS on board. Gotcha violations are no good for anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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

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.

I don't necessarily think that these are gotcha violations in HS. "Last to touch, first to touch" isn't difficult for me to explain to coaches.

But this play definitely isn't one of those gotcha violations. A2 has player control with FC status and lands in the backcourt. The throw-in ended when touched by B1 and the exception shouldn't apply any more. My confusion is with where the line is drawn with respect to when the defensive deflection doesn't matter any more.

Well, it is a rules change. Not just a change in the casebook.

And I cannot stand this rule, because it leaves too much for interpretation. I hope the NF never changes this rule.

Peace

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

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.

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.