The quote from the later released "Comment..." apparently answers that. The deflection does take place "in" the frontcourt and the frontcourt status of the ball remains when it's touched by an offensive player who then is standing in the backcourt. That's the same condition expressed in that "situation 7" you cite.

Anticipation (Carly Simon, 1971) ...
 

I can't wait. I'm eagerly waiting with anticipation and bated breath. Don't make me post that great Carly Simon video again (it's a great song, and she's gorgeous).

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9...=0&w=526&h=168

Hotcakes (Carly Simon, 1974) ...
 

I couldn't resist another look at her. Gorgeous, just gorgeous, as well as a great singer, and a great song writer. Too bad she suffered from stage fright.

http://www.popspotsnyc.com/london/Ca...ticipation.jpg

Indeed, after my post I read the comments. Thanks for clarification.

(could never get over Simon's giant mouth)

Shut Up ...
 

James Taylor found it to be beautiful (at least for a few years).

Again I think some here are making this too complicated. We will only know for sure when they come out with the new interpretations (that are more than one interpretation).

All we know is what they have changed. The "unusual" interpretation that was so controversial did not follow the rules at the time was either changed to reflect this new rule or it was kept for some reason. Either way, that has nothing to do with the NCAA Rule, because the NCAA Rule was the same as the NF Rule for years and they did not have such a silly interpretation. We will only know when all the literature comes out. I would hope they would address this as they made a POE to discuss this before last season.

Peace

Time Will Tell ...
 

You certainly may be right, but without any additional rule changes (and we've seen them all in the press release) I don't see the current (new) rule doing anything other than fixing the unusual interpretation. I don't see an editorial change (or likewise) making a big impact on the backcourt rule without further rule change language, and, like I've said, we've already seen all the rule changes.

We'll just have to wait and see, but my money's on just the unusual interpretation fix, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, just a few bucks. We all know that the NFHS is certainly capable of doing some odd things with some odd unintended consequences.

I'm still waiting for the NFHS to clean up the "team control throwin only for fouls not for backcourt" fiasco with an actual rule change, not with just a Point of Emphasis (that's not available to new officials). I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

Remember this:

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
2. Team control, throw-in. The relevance of team control during a throw-in only applies when a member of the throw- in team fouls. Such fouls shall be ruled team control fouls. Team control during a throw-in is NOT intended to be the same as player control/team control inbounds. Team control inbounds is established when a player from either team who has inbound status gains control of the ball. During the throw-in, 10-seconds, 3-seconds, frontcourt status, backcourt status, closely guarded, etc., are NOT factors as there has yet to be player control/team control obtained inbounds. With specific regard to the backcourt violation; a team may not be the last to touch a live ball in the front court and then be the first to touch a live ball in the backcourt, provided that team has establish player control/team control on the playing court (either in the backcourt or frontcourt). BY RULE EXCEPTION, during a throw-in a team may leave the front court, establish player control/team control while airborne and land in the backcourt. This is a legal play and ONLY applies to the first player of the offense who touches the ball PRIOR to the end of the throw-in.

How are new officials to know this without access to a 2017-18 NFHS Rulebook?

Stupid NFHS.

Again I do not get why people think this is about one interpretation. :rolleyes:

They adopted the NCAA language about a deflection. There are more kinds of deflection than just the one in that interpretation.

Peace

Unusual Interpretation ...
 

Again:

... that are already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules.

Please cite one type of deflection that isn't already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules, including the new rule.

Deflection ...
 

That certainly is one way of viewing at it. It can also be viewed it as the NFHS adopting language that was in the bitterly criticized "unusual interpretation", and their remedy for such bitterly criticized language.

In regard to the game of basketball, "deflection" is an oft used word. The NCAA uses it in their backcourt rule, but the NFHS has also used it in a bitterly criticized interpretation. Some may view that it is the latter language that lead to the recent NFHS rule change. And others may differ with that view.

I really do not have the energy to. Again we will find out when all the literature comes out from the NF in all their publications.

I do not get why I would have to try to prove something when none of us are going to edit the rulebooks or casebooks either way.

It is OK, it will be published soon I would suspect. Deal with it then.

Peace

Touché ...
 

And I need to get to the gym, and then to church for the vigil mass.

Nice debate.

For The Good Of The Cause ...,
 

In addition to the two rules changes approved by the committee, several points of emphasis were identified for the coming season, including concussion recognition, proper procedures for blood issues and coaches monitoring injury and research trends.

“The committee wanted to stress continued education in recognizing signs and symptoms of concussions for coaches, athletes, parents and officials,” Wynns said. “In addition, concern of overuse injuries due to sport specialization should be monitored, and recognition of blood on players and uniforms and the proper procedure for removal of blood and return to play are other areas for education.”

Wynns noted that coaches have primary responsibility for making sure players are wearing legal uniforms and are legally equipped. She said emphasis will be given to rule enforcement in the areas of traveling, legal guarding position and establishing possession during loose-ball situations. Lastly, the committee believes official professionalism and use of proper terminology should be emphasized.

“Overall, the committee believes the rules of the sport are in great shape. These changes provide more clarification in areas where there has been inconsistency in interpretation and will help manufacturers in producing basketballs that meet NFHS specifications,” said Francine Martin, NFHS Basketball Rules Committee chair and assistant executive director of the Kansas State High School Activities Association. “The committee evaluated input from the NFHS basketball rules questionnaire, which is available for all coaches and officials to complete and provide input for future rules changes during the meeting. The points of emphasis are geared toward sports medicine issues and consistent interpretation of playing rules.”

1) No Point of Emphasis regarding backcourt.

2) Is this the reason for the backcourt rule change: These changes provide more clarification in areas where there has been inconsistency in interpretation ...

Grass Roots Effort ...
 

Speak for yourself. I'm one (which is one more than "none") of "us" and I've personally suggested three rule changes that have become part of the NFHS Rulebook.

(And when one suggests a new or revised rule, besides offering a logical rationale, one also has to make any and all necessary edits to the NFHS Casebook affected by said rule change.)

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.U...=0&w=257&h=170

If you are so connected and knowledgeable, then why are you going on and on about something you do not even know the answer about? Wouldn't you already know? Wouldn't you already have the direct answer? All I see you doing is debating something you are not sure about. Having suggested a rules change is not anything special. You are not on the committee apparently or in a position to vote on such change.

Peace

"None Of Us" ???
 

Which is my point exactly. That's why I titled my post "Grass Roots Effort" and even included an image to underscore my point.

I did.

One of us is one more than "none of us", which was the point of my recent post. We all have the ability to make rule changes, connected, or not (as I am not), as long as we have a rationale reason for such a change, can do a good job of explaining that rationale in writing, and are willing to work through the paperwork. Of course, it also has to be a change for the good, to improve the game.

Just complaining about NFHS rules (not directed at JRutledge, but lots of Forum members, including me) on the Forum, or on other forms of social media, probably won't help fix broken rules (I doubt that the NFHS rules committee keeps tabs on what we're discussing here on the Forum).

When we find broken rules, and we have a possible fix, we should work to fix them. As individual officials. Or through our local, or state organizations. Or through our state interscholastic sports governing bodies. Let's be part of the solution.

We're not "tilting at windmills". Sometimes (not necessarily all the time) the NFHS, through all the bureaucratic fog, listens.

And I'm just an official with absolutely no title within any level of my organization other than member.

As usual, you make a mountain out of a molehill. The comment was at best an expression considering that to my knowledge or anyone's knowledge there is not a person that is on this site that is a committee member. What you do in your state or if someone listens to you, good for you. But if you were so knowledgeable, then you would not be debating with me (someone not on the NF Committee or claims to even attempt to give rules change suggestions other than a casual conversation with certain people).

We gave you the rules that might have been pulled from the NCAA. It appears that they clearly used similar language from the NCAA in this rules change. You keep going back to some older interpretation that may or may not still apply. You have not given or no one here has shown a single newer interpretation that either supports or opposes any position we have discussed (likely because there is not one posted yet). So until we have some official word from either an NF publication like the casebook, Simplified and Illustrated Book, NF Guidebook or even something more specific in the rulebook right now we are speculating. All reasonable signs point towards an NCAA change and if that is not the case, the NF certainly had to realize that the NCAA changed a rule last season and would have to clarify they are doing something different. After all the NF has not been good at "thinking" of what their literature means in the bigger picture. So why would I be surprised if they did not act like they were aware of the possible confusion they might be caused if I were to believe this was only for one, single interpretation change.

If I was not bored, I probably would not have responded at all to your comments. But this is not about you Billy. Most of these discussions or opinions shared are not about you.

Peace

Not A Knucklehead ...
 

So I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate with you?

Granted, you're a outstanding official (state finals in multiple sports) and I believe that you are, or were, some type of clinician/trainer/interpreter (these titles don't just go to any knucklehead), but I still have a right to express my opinion.

What makes you think that you can take that right away from me?

Is there a basketball rule gospel according to JRutledge that I don't know about?

Doubled Down ...
 

Similar language was the word "deflection" (a common word in the game of basketball).

I agree that the word is used in the NCAA version of the backcourt rule, and that may be a reasonable sign that the NFHS is going in a direction further than that indicated in the press release.

But the word was also used in the bitterly criticized NFHS interpretation, also a reasonable sign that the NFHS just wants to fix a broken interpretation (which, by the way, is also mentioned in the press release).

Older? The NFHS, just last year, doubled down on that bitterly criticized interpretation, making it less than a year old.

We've seen the new backcourt rule language in its entirety. Backcourt is not going to be a Point of Emphasis. The press release stated that the change was to clarify an "inconsistency in interpretation". That's what I'm basing my opinion on. Are those not reasonable signs (I've offered that your side may also be based on reasonable signs)?

I seriously doubt that the NFHS can move to the NCAA version of the backcourt deflection rule without any additional change in the new rule language. An editorial change (which we haven't yet seen), on its own, won't do the trick (editorial changes are usually just minor changes). They wouldn't (or maybe they would, after all, it is the NFHS were discussing here) come up with an NCAA-type deflection backcourt annual interpretation without additional rule language changes (like the NCAA rule). It can happen, but I doubt that it will be this coming season.

I'm just happy that they (apparently) changed that horrible "simultaneous last to touch, first to touch" interpretation. I probably would have never ruled that in a game (if I did it would have taken all the game management skills that I have to keep a coach from being ejected, "But the defender deflected the ball into the backcourt".), but it really bothered me when the NFHS doubled down on it last year.

I will put it this way. Our State Administrator for Basketball said that there seems to be a trend from the NF to adopt NCAA Rules for rules changes. So since they adopted this only real rules change, I would doubt that the conversation was not about the NCAA Rule change from last year. I really do not care what the NF doubled down on as it appears that was controversial at least here and if there was a change here, they had to be acutely aware what the NCAA recently changed. If they changed an entire rule to apply to one interpretation and that interpretation was clearly not mentioned in the current literature, then that is awful specific that would have other implications. If they said that "last touch, first touch" was the rule but they have an exception if the defense deflects the ball, then to me that sounds a lot like the NCAA rule.

Again, I reserve the right to see what comes out later from the NF. We are not resolving this in this conversation. I just would find it odd. But as a multiple sports officials that have seen the NF play games with language, anything is possible. And this was at least a clearer than other NF rules when they adopted "horsecollar" language in football or even "obstruction" rules changes in baseball the first time around. I know the NF had to come back and clarify their language or even change the language to reflect their intentions after the fact. Maybe that will be done here too. I have little confidence in the NF's ability to realize the impact of their changes when the wording is the most key part of their understanding of what is intended.

Stay tuned. ;)

Peace

You seem to be the only person here making that point of view. I do not recall when a rule was changed they had a POE dealing with the rule they changed. Usually, the change is emphasized enough. I am sure there will be several interpretations or examples to highlight the change.

What else needs to be changed? Interpretations can and have been changed all the time to reflect the intention of the rules they want to be applied. And they have not announced the editorial changes to my knowledge. Maybe they will do that and this will all go away (at least I can hope).

Peace

Trickle Down ...
 

Agree with both you, and your State Administrator (didn't need him, I would have just agreed with you). I've seen the "trickle down" effect in action for over thirty-seven years. It never ever goes uphill, its always downhill (NCAA to NFHS). And this is what makes your argument reasonable.

Yes, I find it odd that the NFHS would come out with a rule change press release with the sole purpose (other than something about pebbles on a basketball) of fixing a badly broken interpretation.

But, I don't believe that there's enough "meat" in the new rule language to make the change to the NCAA rule. If the NFHS was going to make change (and they may eventually do it, see the trickle down rule above) they would have put in some additional rule language, that would have been publicized in the press release. Why keep it a secret?

Agree. See "throwin team control backcourt" rule.

Can Bend Steel In His Bare Hands ...
 

Agree. My reference was irrelevant, it's just that I was running out of ammunition and had to throw something, like the bad guys throwing their empty revolvers at Superman. Yeah, bullets can't hurt Superman, but a thrown revolver can?

You're right, they haven't. But don't hang your hat on that one. Editorial changes are usually minor changes and a change to the NCAA backcourt deflection rule would be a big change that would need additional rule language changes.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.a...=0&w=300&h=300

Why would you need additional language? Just get rid of the stupid interpretation. Problem solved.

Peace

Bury This Issue For Good ...
 

I believe that additional language would be needed to make the NFHS make the full switch to the NCAA deflection backcourt rule (not to fix the stupid interpretation, which the new language hopefully now takes makes null and void).

The stupid interpretation may be correct by the ultra strictest most literal interpretation of the rule language (simultaneous last to touch, first to touch), at least according to the stupid interpretation (publicized twice for good measure.) Getting rid of the stupid interpretation would certainly be one way to deal with it. I prefer that it completely match the written rule, now with the exception built in, to bury this issue for good, for all time. This was a case where the old literal written rule didn't really match the intent and purpose of the rule, although I'm sure that most of us would, in a real game, have ruled by intent and purpose rather than the old literal written rule with its stupid interpretation.

Again, why would you need a big language change? Everyone was not an engineer (or something similar) by trade. Most people did not even realize there was this interpretation for years. People would find it on a whim because they either were told this existed or they read it on their own. And I know many officials that found this out and basically said it would not happen or they would not enforce it that way.

As I said before, you are worrying about this too much IMHO. If they just magically let go of the interpretation and it just was not in the casebook, I think people would be just fine. Keep in mind not many people (even here) are debating how complicated this new rule is. I have seen this rule posted and talked about on more than one social media outlet and I have not seen the point of view once that you have stated as a concern. That should tell you something. ;)

I also do not think that they can make this change without supporting interpretations to give examples of exactly the intent of this rule and not the intended applications. I am sure there will be a play or two in the S&I Rulebook and the Guidebook will give several plays that address this change as well. And I am willing to wait for the process to be complete. Until then when camp is going on this summer, we will just tell them to consider the deflection to be "all bets are off" or use the NCAA rule. ;)

Peace

We have the ability to "suggest" rule changes, not "make" them.

And any rule change that ties into one of your suggestions may have been suggested by somebody on the committee or other folks making suggestions.

What Jeff and I are questioning is your constant (and often 1-person) debates about unclear verbiage that no one in this forum has any control over.

I should have said this some time ago on this site. :D

Peace

Exception ...
 

... To switch to the NCAA backcourt deflection rule.

Wouldn't we need language similar to the NCAA version? I don't believe that it can be done with just this exception to the current NFHS rule.

An EXCEPTION added to the backcourt violation (9-9-1): To ensure that an offensive team is not unfairly penalized when the ball is deflected by the defense from the frontcourt to the backcourt. This exception allows the offense to recover the ball (that still has frontcourt status) in the backcourt without penalty

This doesn't seem to cover the NCAA situation where the ball is deflected away from the ball handler by the defense, and then the offense, in an attempt to regain the ball, sends the ball, without player control, from the frontcourt into the backcourt.

These (below) are not the same:

NCAA: 9-12-5 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.

NFHS 9-9-1: EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

There must be a language change to change the current (new) NFHS rule into the NCAA rule. The new NFHS exception alone won't do the trick.

Very Limited ...
 

But we do, very limited, and sometimes the NFHS may not listen to us, but we still have some very limited control over rule changes. By either suggesting changes, or by completing the NFHS questionnaire that we're sent every year, or by contacting members of the rules committee. One may even send it up the line through one's local, or state (or in my case, international), official's association, possibly with the help of association officers, or one can send it up though one's state interscholastic sports governing body. Another possibility is to go through a state coaches association for those states that have such. It's not easy, but officials voices can be heard.

You should draft up that email to the NFHS and let them know that this interpretation, or rule change or whatever it is, is still causing confusion.

What would be nice if you would stop asking us the same question over and over again in different forms. We don't have an answer. We already agree with you that there needs to be further guidance.

So what exactly are you looking for? We've already identified the problem. And we've already established what should probably be the solution(s).

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Null And Void ...
 

I'm not confused. Not one bit. I like the rule just as it is, the added exception basically making the stupid interpretation null and void. It is also my opinion, and I'm not confused about this at all either, though I may be wrong, that the added NFHS exception does not duplicate the NCAA deflection rule. Additional NFHS rule language is needed for the NFHS rule to duplicate the NCAA rule.

NCAA: 9-12-5 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.

NFHS 9-9-1: EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Chutes And Ladders ...
 

My three rule changes went up the ladder and came back down the ladder with acknowledgments. Of those three, there was one suggestion where there were duplicate suggestions ("other folks") given at the same time for the same rule change. A fourth suggested change was ignored with no response from the NFHS.

I actually don't think the new change is confusing. It seems pretty obvious to me....and it isn't the NCAA rule.

For the record, the NCAA loves to use the word "exception" for all kinds of rules and situations. They do this in football as well by having a rule and creating and exception to that rule. It is the way they write their rules. The NF does not typically do this. And like Raymond said, nothing we are going to do about that. So why do you keep repeating the same questions over and over again?

Peace

That is the problem. You only "think" you do not know. Kind of what we are talking about here. Until the information comes out we are all only "thinking" what the rule actually does. Because there is certainly no evidence that the rule was changed for one interpretation as nothing supports that position. Actually, the NCAA Rule is more logical because it was a recent NCAA change and now the NF uses almost similar language. But as stated before, I am willing to have final judgment when everything comes out. Apparently people that have no direct line of information are unwilling to wait as well. ;)

In Its Present Form ...
 

I can wait. My local board "new rules meeting" won't be until late October. My refresher exam won't be due until mid November. My first scrimmage won't be until late November. My first game won't be until early December. But until then, for discussion purposes (since I won't be taking an exam, or officiating any games or scrimmages), I'm going with the rule as it was written and publicized, and don't need to speculate as to whether, or not, the rule is the same as the NCAA rule because, in its present form, it isn't. That may change in the fall, or a year from now, or after that, or never, but it isn't the same right now.

NCAA: 9-12-5 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.

NFHS 9-9-1: EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Except that the exception really has nothing to do with the rule that it addresses. The rule that it addresses talks about an offensive player touching the ball last in the front court. The exception talks about a defensive player touching the ball last in the frontcourt.

They would have been better off just adding the verbage from "Basketball Comments on the Rules", May 17, 2018" quoted upstream as a note to the BC rule.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Well the NF Rulebooks are out in like late July or early August if they are publishing in the same timing as they have in the past. There will be literature out long before November likely giving incite on the issue. Now I am not saying they will clear up your personal concerns. I would suspect that the NF will sloppily resolve this and create more questions as they already have. But again we will have to see. And what I mean by saying that the rule is the same as the NCAA, I believe the intent of the application is the same. But we already know the NF hates to take on other level rules while at the same time trying to create the very same rule application. That is kind of why we are here in the first place because they clearly wanted to take the NCAA Team Control Rule, but for some reason did not want to use the already existing language. But clearly, they would come back and say how they wanted the rule to be applied (which was basically the same as the NCAA in every way except that stupid interpretation).

Peace

Then why do you keep posting what you think it is about instead of just waiting for the clarification to come?

Because the comments are directed towards me and Raymond. That is kind of how it works. ;)

Peace

There isn't enough popcorn in the world.

I guess if I was a good moderator, I'd moderate here, but I'm just so damned entertained. :D

Yeah, I've been staying out of this for days but the absurdity of it is certainly amusing. Some things never change.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Always listen to bob. Wait ... I'm being told ... No opinion? But we always listen to bob. We need bob's opinion. Never mind.

Everybody Sits Around The Campfire ...
 

Actually, I have no concerns at this time. I'm fairly confident that I understand the rule as presently written and its intent, purpose, and interpretation. I will have concerns if the (new) rule language stays the same (as the press release) and the interpretation is that the NFHS backcourt deflection rule is the same as the NCAA backcourt deflection rule because, in it's present form, they aren't the same. It (NCAA) rule seems like a good rule. If the NFHS has indeed already switched to the NCAA version, as JRutledge, and others, have assumed, hopefully the NFHS will make some adjustments in the rule language somewhere down the line so the written rule matches the interpretation.

Agree 100%. See "throwin team control for fouls but not for backcourt" 2017-18 Point of Emphasis, which should be written into the rules for all to see, especially new officials. Same thing with the 2012-13 Point of Emphasis regarding above the shoulder situations (above the shoulder, below the shoulder, excessive swinging, not excessive swinging, contact, no contact, violation, personal foul, intentional foul, flagrant foul). How are new officials without a 2012-13 Rulebook supposed to have a reference for this? By listening to stories in the oral tradition from veteran officials as everybody sits around the campfire splitting bones to eat the bone marrow? And of course, worst of all, see the 2017-18 stupid interpretation (SITUATION 7). "Sloppily" is certainly an accurate description.

My opinion is that the thread should have been closed about 140 posts ago -- right after one person said "is this just to correct the interp" and someone else responded "or is it to go to the NCAAM rule" and the corrct third person said "we'll have to wait to see."

Break It Down ...
 

Good summary.