NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Here are some NCAA Approved Rulings on the topic.

They backed up their position, so not sure what is subjective?

A.R. 222. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his front court near the division line.

1. A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with one or both feet in the backcourt.

2. A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces into Team A’s
front court. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s front court, it is
deflected into Team A’s backcourt, where A3 retrieves it.

3. A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into the backcourt.
A2 then goes into the backcourt and recovers the fumble.

RULING 1: Legal play. Since a Team B player deflected A1’s inbounds
pass, when A2 catches the ball in the air and lands with one or both
feet in the backcourt, B1’s deflection caused the ball to go into Team
A’s backcourt, and a Team A player is permitted to be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt.
(Rule 9-12.1 through .3, .5 through .7 and .9 through .10, and 7-6.5)

2: Legal. This is not a backcourt violation since neither player nor team
control had been established in the front court.
(Rule 9-12.4)

3: Legal. This is not a backcourt violation since neither player nor team
control had been established in the front court.
(Rule 9-12.4, and 9-12.1 through .3, .5 through .7 and .9 through .10)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.R. 223. A1 is in possession of the ball in the front court and throws a pass
to A2, who is located near the division line. A1’s pass is errant. A2 leaves the
playing court with both feet in an attempt to prevent the ball from going into
the backcourt. While in the air, A2 gains possession of the ball and throws it
into the playing court, where it strikes the division line. The ball returns to the
front court, where A3 recovers the ball before it is touched by an opponent.

RULING: Team A has committed a backcourt violation. The official shall blow the whistle for the backcourt violation when the ball is touched by A3 in the front court after it touched the division line. Team A had control of the ball in its front court and the ball was last touched by Team A without a deflection by Team B before going into the backcourt.
(Rule 9-12.4 and 9-12.1 through .3, .5 through .7 and .9 through .10)

Peace

[OKREF]

2018-19 Rules Comments

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 also makes the play situation on the deflected pass consistent with other codes with very similar team control and backcourt rules

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

2018-19 Rules Comments

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 also makes the play situation on the deflected pass consistent with other codes with very similar team control and backcourt rules

If they didn't fix that stupid "last to touch, first to touch" where the defender deflects it off the offensive player's leg, then that's too bad.

Nobody playing or coaching the game wants this to be a violation, although I think some officials like this rule so they can show everyone how smart they are.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

If they didn't fix that stupid "last to touch, first to touch" where the defender deflects it off the offensive player's leg, then that's too bad.

Nobody playing or coaching the game wants this to be a violation, although I think some officials like this rule so they can show everyone how smart they are.

Based on the wording we've seen so far, that is not addressed, so it is not the same as the NCAA rule change last season.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Based on the wording we've seen so far, that is not addressed, so it is not the same as the NCAA rule change last season.

It comes down to the interpretations, but it looks like they whiffed, as usual.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Based on the wording we've seen so far, that is not addressed, so it is not the same as the NCAA rule change last season.

Well, I do not disagree at all based on what we have been shown. But something tells me their intent was to take on the NCAA rule but did not (as usual) take on the exact language.

I guess this is year 1 of a three year fix.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

If they didn't fix that stupid "last to touch, first to touch" where the defender deflects it off the offensive player's leg, then that's too bad.

Nobody playing or coaching the game wants this to be a violation, although I think some officials like this rule so they can show everyone how smart they are.

I think they did fix it. Of course, all they really had to do was retract the interpretation, but they can't make it that simple. It was never a violation before the interpretation and should have never been....it made no sense at all.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think they did fix it. Of course, all they really had to do was retract the interpretation, but they can't make it that simple. It was never a violation before the interpretation and should have never been....it made no sense at all.

No, I meant the rule has always been broken.

If I knock it out of your hands and it ends up in the backcourt, it shouldn't matter if it hits your leg or not, you should be able to retrieve it.

Stupid, stupid rule. I never really get all wound up on rules, but I do on this one.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, I meant the rule has always been broken.

If I knock it out of your hands and it ends up in the backcourt, it shouldn't matter if it hits your leg or not, you should be able to retrieve it.

Stupid, stupid rule. I never really get all wound up on rules, but I do on this one.

OK, i understand you now...and agree with you, for the most part.

But, do you hold the same idea about a ball that is knocked out of a player's hands, and off of that player's legs then OOB? Should the offense not be subject to that?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... a ball that is knocked out of a player's hands, and off of that player's legs then OOB? Should the offense not be subject to that?

A1 is dribbling the ball. B1 deflects the ball away from A1. Ball is heading toward out of bounds and hits A2 who happens to be (momentarily, and legally) standing out of bounds. Did B1 cause the ball to go out of bounds, or did A2 cause the ball to go out of bounds?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

OK, i understand you now...and agree with you, for the most part.

But, do you hold the same idea about a ball that is knocked out of a player's hands, and off of that player's legs then OOB? Should the offense not be subject to that?

One has nothing to do with the other.

If the defense deflects a pass and I'm standing OOB when I catch it, it's OOB on me.

If the defense deflects a pass and I'm standing in the BC when I catch it, it is not a BC violation against me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

2018-19 Rules Comments

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.

Addition to the description of the surface of the basketball (1-12-1c): Each year basketball manufacturers are becoming more creative in the design of the basketball. Even though these innovative designs are popular, they may not meet NFHS standards. In an attempt to give more specific direction, the committee added terminology to better describe the accepted surface of a legal basketball.
History of Changes in the basketball
1955 Rubber covered ball may be used
1957 Ball color must be tan or yellow
1959 Orange colored ball may be used
1960 Ball must be orange or natural tan
1968 Ball channels limited to ¼ inch
1985 A 1-inch smaller and 2-ounce lighter ball adopted for high school girls
2003 Multiple-paneled basketballs permitted
2015 Effective 2019-20 ball colors shall be Pantone Matching System (PMS) orange 152, red-orange 173 or brown 1535

Great. Now I'm going to have to remember to pack my officially licensed NFHS Deeply Pebbled Granulated Surface Detector ®, and my officially licensed NFHS Pantone Color Chart ®.

Remember the good old days when all we would have to carry in our warmup jacket pocket was a needle to deflate an overinflated basketball?

Will we have to memorize these basketball history dates for the exam?

Also, for your information, prior to 1955, basketballs were made out of a rock covered with wood. It's true. Ask Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

https://www.amazon.com/PANTONE-FORMU...or+chart&psc=1

[The_Rookie]

[QUOTE=BillyMac;1021628][I]1
Also, for your information, prior to 1955, basketballs were made out of a rock covered with wood. It's true. Ask Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

LMAO..He was around when Adam & Eve played BB

[ilyazhito]

Ah, a new reason for the Fall of Adam and Eve. Maybe God was annoyed with them playing basketball . It seems ridiculous that the only changes made are about the color and shape of the ball (and maybe a needed correction to the backcourt rule), but no substantive changes to gameplay. Was the bonus-format change proposal even considered in committee?