NFHS Update

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A judgment call IS a subjective call. Judgment is ... seeing and having the option to decide whether if was an infraction or not....aka subjective.

For example, ruling a dribble to determine team control (which can, and often is, independent of a backcourt determination).

Right next to the definition of subjective in the dictionary is a picture of Camron Rust. Well, not really, but you get my point.

Also, why isn't there a judge in judgment? Don't you think that there should be? After all, that's what judges get paid for, to judge, and to make judgments.

[JRutledge]

Whatever you call it does not matter. All that matters when does this new exception apply and when does it not apply. If we find out they took on the NCAA Rule (which they are using similar language) with this exception, then that should clear up many things. If they want to make exceptions to an exception, then we are right back to where we were before, but for different reasons.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

.

Right next to the definition of subjective in the dictionary is a picture of Camron Rust. Well, not really, but you get my point.

.

Wouldn't the definition be more effective if it was a picture that could arguably be Camron Rust?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... similar language ...

Old NFHS Language:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

New NFHS language:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

I'm interested to see if there is a new NFHS casebook play, or an new NFHS annual interpretation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Old NFHS Language:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

New NFHS language:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

I'm interested to see if there is a new NFHS casebook play, or an new NFHS annual interpretation.

I was not talking about the NF. I was talking about the NF using similar language from the NCAA.

9-12-4 and 9-12-5.

Art. 4. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his backcourt (with any part of his body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while that player’s team was in team control and that player or his teammate was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt. (Exception: See Rule 9-12.5)

Art. 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.

BTW, sounds like they changed the rule as I had been stating. This is more than just a change of one unusual interpretation. That is what Raymond and I have been saying all along.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not talking about the NF. I was talking about the NF using similar language from the NCAA.

I was 100% fully aware of that. I was just offering the new NFHS language so that you guys that do both college and high school can compare the two.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... If we find out they took on the NCAA Rule (which they are using similar language)

I offered the new language to answer your "if we find out" statement. We did "find out", and it appears that the NFHS didn't take on the entire NCAA rule language, just the added exception statement (assuming that your 9-12-4 and 9-12-5 post above is the NCAA rule).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is more than just a change of one unusual interpretation.

Please offer how the NFHS rule change impacts a play other than the "unusual interpretation".

(Note: I love JRutledge's adjective "unusual" to describe the (hopefully) now extinct NFHS interpretation. Dinosaurs were also "unusual", but I wouldn't want a Tyrannosaurus Rex hanging out in my backyard. As such, I never liked this "unusual interpretation", and would love to see it relegated to an "unusual interpretation" museum.)

(Another note: There was a Black Bear in my frontyard last week, common for many of you, but very rare and certainly "unusual" for my little part of my little corner of Connecticut. It was a first for me, and I was totally fascinated, but also a little scared, I made sure that the front door of my house was unlocked and available for me to make a quick entrance if needed.)

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2017-18
SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched it in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

New 9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2017-18
SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched it in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

New 9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

I am still just slightly confused. Does this new "exception" now make that case (situation 7) legal? When the exception indicates "from the frontcourt" I expect it to imply a "to" location, such as the backcourt. In the case however, the ball never had backcourt status. Should not the exception read perhaps as "..deflected in the frontcourt.."? (Notice the use of word "in" instead of "from".

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Please offer how the NFHS rule change impacts a play other than the "unusual interpretation"...[/I]

It can't. This wording won't allow any change but for that misguided 2006-07 and 2017-18 Interpretation:

"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." ("Basketball Comments on the Rules", May 17, 2018)

By stating that they're applying this only to a deflected ball "that still has frontcourt status," this change cannot go as far as the NCAA-M did as their backcourt rule was revised last year to say, "Art. 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."

Right?

Now watch them prove me wrong by coming out with an Interpretation or Casebook situation to the contrary.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Does this new "exception" now make that case (situation 7) legal?

Hopefully it does, getting rid of the unusual "simultaneous last to touch, first to touch" interpretation that's been around, and bitterly criticized, for a few years.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bucky

I am still just slightly confused. Does this new "exception" now make that case (situation 7) legal? When the exception indicates "from the frontcourt" I expect it to imply a "to" location, such as the backcourt. In the case however, the ball never had backcourt status. Should not the exception read perhaps as "..deflected in the frontcourt.."? (Notice the use of word "in" instead of "from".

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Now watch them prove me wrong by coming out with an Interpretation or Casebook situation to the contrary.

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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Don't make me post that great Carly Simon video again (it's a great song, and she's gorgeous).

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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

(could never get over Simon's giant mouth)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

(could never get over Simon's giant mouth)

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