NFHS Update

[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

[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?

[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.

[JRutledge]

The ball is not automatically dead if the ball goes into the BC or touches the BC. The ball is dead if it goes outside the boundary. That to me is a huge difference.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Agree...but, conceptually, backcourt is like OOB for the offense with the exception that the ball in the backcourt remains "live" for the defense to play it but not for the offense when the offense "causes" the ball to go to the backcourt (be being the last to touch it).

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How is this subjective? The defender touched the ball or was have ruled to have touched or deflected as the rule says the ball. If the defender never touched the ball, then you just ruled that the defender never touched the ball. But if the defender deflects the ball, then the offense (or defense how the rule reads), anyone can go get the ball in the backcourt. And in this NF change, it says if the defense deflects the ball, then all bets are off as to who can go get the ball. The language is almost the same.

In the "old" NF interpretation, it was only one type of play and that was when the ball was touched and a player was airborne jumping from the FC and contacted the ball and landed in the BC. That is not what the NF is saying at all based on their current language they are using.

I am not seeing some drastic difference.

Peace

I agree it's not a drastic difference. Officials make judgement calls all the time and this isn't any different. I just happened to like the simplicity of the last to touch in FC, first to touch in BC interpretation.

The subjective part is did the offensive player get the deflected ball in the BC or did they get the deflected ball in the FC and then go into the BC.

With the example noted, the ball is deflected, the offensive player in the front court bats the ball in an attempt to gain control, the ball goes into the BC and the offensive player recovers. Whether or not the batting of the ball in the FC (after the deflection) is considered control (i.e. a dribble) or not is subjective.