NFHS Update

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

That being said, I don’t really have any issue with this change. Deflection = anyone can touch it. Easy enough.

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

It appears they went to the NCAA Rule that was changed last year.

I am cautious that we do not know what is official until we see the final rule (Someone said it takes the NF 3 years to get a rule right), but they seemed to take the NCAA language in describing the rule change. Because if they are trying to advocate a previous mistake, then they could do that editorially, not with a rules change.

Time will ultimately tell. You certainly gave me pause, but I do not see how this is not the NCAA change that was made last year?

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

As someone who has thumped the shot clock drum in various means and capacities I can tell you its not an old guard vs youth movement issue.

Its logistic vs sentiment/philosophy.

All arguments for the shot clock have to do with changing the way the game is played, aligning it with other levels, preparing kids to play, giving kids autonomy, making it a play making type game vs a coach controlled game etc. List goes on and on but its basically basketball as a community and a concept moving in a different direction, that is benefited by a a shot clock.

All arguments against the shot clock are practical ones. Budgetary concerns, coaching concerns, table issues etc. Logistical and practical problems that people cannot/ do not feel they should have to overcome in their position.

The reality is that so long as AD's and coaches jobs/livelihoods/paychecks are tied to effective management of their team/programs and success a majority will not be in favour of the shot clock. The shot clock increases responsibilities and costs while altering styles of play and game management for coaches, players, officials, and staff. It eliminates potential strategies and coach control. IT requires coaches to coach differently. Shot clocks are asking AD's and coaches for the "good of the game" to take on logistical and fundamental differences to how they operate, when operational complications can cost them their jobs.

They are not going to do those things for philosophical reasons in most cases.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Its logistic vs sentiment/philosophy.

All arguments for the shot clock have to do with changing the way the game is played, aligning it with other levels, preparing kids to play, giving kids autonomy, making it a play making type game vs a coach controlled game etc. List goes on and on but its basically basketball as a community and a concept moving in a different direction, that is benefited by a a shot clock.

All arguments against the shot clock are practical ones. Budgetary concerns, coaching concerns, table issues etc. Logistical and practical problems that people cannot/ do not feel they should have to overcome in their position.

I disagree with that. I am against the shot clock (in HS) for practical reasons, AND I also think the HS game is better without it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree with that. I am against the shot clock (in HS) for practical reasons, AND I also think the HS game is better without it.

I agree. I think the whole "good of the game" argument is just a bunch of crap.

0% of NFHS decision-making should be tied to "preparing players to play at the next level."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

Mary Struckhoff -- the former NFHS rules editor who didn't understand the rules!

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

Agreed. Seems to me that if A touches after B and ball goes into backcourt, if A touches, it will still be a backcourt

[BillyMac]

An exception was approved to note that any player who was located in the backcourt may recover a ball that is deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Is this (below) what the NFHS is trying to clarify?

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 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)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

An exception was approved to note that any player who was located in the backcourt may recover a ball that is deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Is this (below) what the NFHS is trying to clarify?

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 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)

Whether or not it was the target, it fixes that anomaly. That's why I posted what I posted at the beginning of the thread.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

An exception was approved to note that any player who was located in the backcourt may recover a ball that is deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Is this (below) what the NFHS is trying to clarify?

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 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)

I hope this is what the rule change is trying to fix.

If they are trying to make it so that a ball deflected by D1 that bounces off of A1 in the front court can still be recovered by A1 in the backcourt -- that seems unnecessary. I like rewarding the defense for making a good play.
And with the current rule you don't have to interpret how/why the ball got to the backcourt -- just who touched it in the FC last.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

....
And with the current rule you don't have to interpret how/why the ball got to the backcourt -- just who touched it in the FC last.

Isn't the italicized statement exactly what you're trying to avoid in the bolded statement?

Under the current NFHS rule, you most definitely have to interpret how/why the ball got in the backcourt. With the NCAA rule, once the defense deflects the ball, you no longer have to worry about BC scenarios.

[Freddy]

Basketball Rules Changes - 2018-19
By NFHS on May 15, 2018

1-12-1c: It shall have a deeply-pebbled, granulated surface, with horizontally shaped panels bonded tightly to the rubber carcass.

Rationale: The additional words give manufacturers a better sense of what a deeply-pebbled cover should look like.

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.

Rationale: To ensure that a team is not unfairly disadvantaged on a deflected pass.

http://www.nfhs.org/sport…/basketbal...anges-2018-19/

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Basketball Rules Changes - 2018-19
By NFHS on May 15, 2018

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

NCAA-M:
Rule 4-12: 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.

The only way I can see that what the NFHS came up with to make it the same as the NCAA-M is to put a huge emphasis on the word "EXCEPTION". If one doesn't, the new words appearing after don't add anything to what's there before.

Or is the NFHS trying to come up with something different?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Basketball Rules Changes - 2018-19
By NFHS on May 15, 2018

1-12-1c: It shall have a deeply-pebbled, granulated surface, with horizontally shaped panels bonded tightly to the rubber carcass.

Rationale: The additional words give manufacturers a better sense of what a deeply-pebbled cover should look like.

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.

Rationale: To ensure that a team is not unfairly disadvantaged on a deflected pass.

http://www.nfhs.org/sport…/basketbal...anges-2018-19/

Looks like they're staying with the HS rule and just adding an exception to make legal what was always legal until someone came up with an erroneous interpretation that contradicted the rule. At least we don't have the silly interpretation confusing the matter any more.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Isn't the italicized statement exactly what you're trying to avoid in the bolded statement?

Under the current NFHS rule, you most definitely have to interpret how/why the ball got in the backcourt. With the NCAA rule, once the defense deflects the ball, you no longer have to worry about BC scenarios.

I disagree. The HS rule is and always was objective....who touched it where and in what order is all that matter.

The NCAA rule is subjective. For the NCAA rule, how much much activity after a defensive deflection is allowed before the backcourt rule is back in effect? Is it back on if the offence catches the ball, then immediately steps in the BC? Or steps in the BC after a second or two?

The NCAA rule leaves a gray area subject to interpretation, the HS doesn't.