NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)?

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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. 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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Our State Administrator for Basketball said that there seems to be a trend from the NF to adopt NCAA Rules for rules changes. then to me that sounds a lot like the NCAA rule.

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.

Originally Posted by Rich

I can't imagine a huge headline just to close a weird interpretation, to be honest with you.

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?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Agree. See "throwin team control backcourt" rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... they have not announced the editorial changes to my knowledge.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, why would you need a big language change?

... 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... no one in this forum has any control over.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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