NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

Yes, they could have fixed that interpretation by an Editorial Change.

This clearly to me is about what the NCAA Rule was last year and the NF changing to that part of the rule.

Peace

[SC Official]

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.

Agreed.

People will say "it will stop teams from playing stall ball." How many high school teams across the country actually play this way? Just because you read one or two stories about teams holding the ball for an entire quarter doesn't mean it's the norm.

Furthermore, I would bet that most possessions in high school games (at least where I am) don't last more than 30 seconds before a try hits the rim.

Originally Posted by Rich

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."

It's similar to when people talk about doing things "for the kids." Balderdash. People that want the shot clock in high school want it because that's what the higher levels do.

The skill levels that NFHS rules are written for are encompass a much wider spectrum than higher-level rules.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, they could have fixed that interpretation by an Editorial Change.

This clearly to me is about what the NCAA Rule was last year and the NF changing to that part of the rule.

Agreed. FED seems to adopt an NCAA rule or two every offseason, so this change would be consistent with that trend.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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.

Basically, the rule change seems to solve the issue of what they feel the rule should have been or what may coaches and players thought the rule was in the first place. So it does not appear to matter anymore who touched the ball if the defense caused the deflection. I am not a total fan of the newer rule either, but that conversation can be over if this is the rule. Almost every situation there would be an argument over who tipped the ball.

Peace

[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?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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

Yes, I think the NFHS, with the addition of their new "EXCEPTION" is merely retracting the Interpretation that they published back in 2006-07 and then again in 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)

Though many may have hoped they'd follow suit and adopt what the NCAA-M did, they didn't. Their "Exception" covers something different than NFHS.

Right?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yes, I think the NFHS, with the addition of their new "EXCEPTION" is merely retracting the Interpretation that they published back in 2006-07 and then again in 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)

Though many may have hoped they'd follow suit and adopt what the NCAA-M did, they didn't. Their "Exception" covers something different than NFHS.

Right?

We need the new verbiage to answer that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yes, I think the NFHS, with the addition of their new "EXCEPTION" is merely retracting the Interpretation that they published back in 2006-07 and then again in 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)

Though many may have hoped they'd follow suit and adopt what the NCAA-M did, they didn't. Their "Exception" covers something different than NFHS.

Right?

Why would you create an entire exception to the rule, just to change one interpretation that was used last year as a clarification last year with backcourt rules?

I guess I am not getting why is all that necessary for an interpretation that hardly anyone knew was even there in the first place. This could be done with an editorial change.

And 9-9-1 says nothing about the interpretation that we referenced, that was only in the casebook.

Peace

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

We need the new verbiage to answer that.

The new verbiage came out this morning from NFHS:

"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.

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...anges-2018-19/

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

They have done it before.

It is easier to say they're changing the rule rather than admitting they had doubled down on an incorrect interpretation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

How is the NCAA rule subjective? If the defense makes a play on the ball and deflects or knocks the ball away, it does not matter who it goes off of, anyone can go and get the ball without penalty. It sounds like the very same thing we are talking about here. The NF just gave one example that fits the NCAA rule.

I am sure we will need more information, but the NCAA rule uses that as an exception to the rule.

Now the problem is going to be that the NF will not take on the exact language and this will muddy the waters without extensive interpretations, but I see nothing that deals with this any different than the NCAA at this point.

Peace