Interpretations Check
 

We're still good with this, right? . . . Or not?

SITUATION 6: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s frontcourt (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt
court and catches the ball in the air. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection (legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in Team B’s frontcourt and then steps in Team B’s backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a defensive player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

It is still good.

Sadly, that is correct.

I would prefer that they change it so that frontcourt/backcourt not exist at ll until a player catches the ball inbounds and that an airborne player doesn't have either status until landing.

I have to disagree.
Nowhere have I ever read that the defensive player exception only applies to the first player to touch the ball. I believe that someone with the NFHS is incorrectly applying a provision of the throw-in exception to the defense.

Defensive ???
 

Bingo. Agree. The word "defensive" jumped out at me right away. This has got to be an error.

Simple fix. There are no restrictions to landing in either the frontcourt or the backcourt for the first player to secure PC subsequent to a throw-in.

NFHS (and NCAAW) have issued prior interps to the effect that there is no "offense" or "defense" until there's PC inbounds. So, the "defensive player" exception cannot apply here.

And, since the throw-in was touched, the "player who catches a throw-in" exception cannot apply, either.

I would support some sort of rules change, but that's what it would take.

Nevada is right about the initial touch stuff not applying to defensive players. Only throwin does it apply. I think it's likely bad grammar/sentence structure/sloppiness as opposed to a new interpretation etc.
Whomever, imo, is trying to say 1. Normal landing exception stuff applies only to throw in and defense. 2. Only for initial touch on throwin. (The play is a throwin that they are explaining.)

They're thinking about throwin but added statement in last sentence about defense which is not correct. sloppy writing and not thinking it all the way through.

Not playing defense?
 

If B2 is fouled attempting to catch the ball it is a Team Control foul on Team A. Clearly there is an offense and a defense on a Throw In, even if the ball is tipped. Frustrating.

Interp Sitch #4
 

SITUATION 4: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt.

RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1’s deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

In situation #6 that Freddy posted, B2 jumps from his BACKCOURT, which is not included in 9-9-3 as an exception. (H/T Nevada for pointing that out from a similar thread in 2006!)

The defensive player exception is not for this situation. The defensive exception has always applied only after there is team & player control inbounds.

+1

I disagree with your disagreement. :) The reason the exception only applies to the first person to touch the ball is that the exception in 9-9-3 specifically applies only DURING a jump ball or throw-in, or while on defense. Since the throw-in ends when it is legally touched inbounds, the second player who makes the catch and lands in the backcourt is not making that play DURING the throw-in. Therefore, no exception.

He knows that I'm sure. the last sentence in Freddy's play says normal landing provision applies to the throw in and defensive exceptions..."AND is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball."

It reads as if initial touch has something to do with the defensive exception. We all agree it doesn't...but that sentence does read that way....

I have to agree with this. Situation 6 is not covered by the exception because the player does not jump from his frontcourt as the text of the rule requires. My problem is now solely with Situation 4.

I don't think that is true. I don't have my old books with me at this time, but I believe that 9-9-3 used to read something such as "a player from a team not in control may..." That was always true of the players on the non-throwing team.