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.

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.

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?

@ 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.

Agreed - we discussed 222 at a league meeting I was at (Art not present).

Do you know if Art is going to address this with a future correction bulletin?

I had registered for the Philly clinic, but I'm not going to be able to make it.

I would assume that he will - his response to a question about it (and a couple of other questions) was "let me get back to you".

I was going to suggest simply asking him directly. I have found that he has always been very quick to respond. I am confident that he will indeed "..get back to you." and we will have the answer.

I'm about to send him an email concerning the various shot-clock resets for a kicked ball. Based on the 2-11-6.b (exception), 2-11-7.b, & 2-11-8 here are the resets. One of them does not sound right:

FC kicked ball/over 20: no reset
FC kicked ball/under 20: reset to 20
BC kicked ball/over 20: no reset
BC kicked ball/under 20: reset to 30
Throw-in kicked ball/over 20: no reset
Throw-in kicked ball/under 20: reset to 20

I didn’t catch this, but I just read the text of the rule again and it seems that is what it says.

Rule 2-11.6.e: “Stop the timing device and reset it to 30 seconds when a violation occurs except as in Rule 2-11.7.a and .b.”

Rule 2-11.7.a and .b: “Stop the timing device and continue time without a reset when play is stopped under the following circumstances:

a. The ball is deflected or caused to be out of bounds by a defensive player;
b. When an intentionally kicked or fisted ball occurs with 20 seconds or more”

The Case Book doesn’t seem to help on this.

I don't see this is a quick read of the rules (maybe it's somewhere else). I agree that there's a specific rule on the reset times for a kicked ball during a throw-in.

2-11-6.b (exception). Stop the timing device and reset it to 30 seconds: (Exception: When a personal or technical foul or kicking/fisting violation is committed by the defense and the ball is to be inbounded by the offense in the front court, the shot-clock will be reset to 20 seconds or the time remaining on the shot clock, whichever is greater.)

This question was asked and discussed, and confirmed that reset to 30 in this instance was correct.

edit: which does not make sense.

OK, thanks. I sent the play into Art but he hasn't replied yet.