NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Old NFHS Language:

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and 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.

New NFHS language:

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.

I'm interested to see if there is a new NFHS casebook play, or an new NFHS annual interpretation.

I was not talking about the NF. I was talking about the NF using similar language from the NCAA.

9-12-4 and 9-12-5.

Art. 4. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his backcourt (with any part of his body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while that player’s team was in team control and that player or his teammate was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt. (Exception: See Rule 9-12.5)

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.

BTW, sounds like they changed the rule as I had been stating. This is more than just a change of one unusual interpretation. That is what Raymond and I have been saying all along.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not talking about the NF. I was talking about the NF using similar language from the NCAA.

I was 100% fully aware of that. I was just offering the new NFHS language so that you guys that do both college and high school can compare the two.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... If we find out they took on the NCAA Rule (which they are using similar language)

I offered the new language to answer your "if we find out" statement. We did "find out", and it appears that the NFHS didn't take on the entire NCAA rule language, just the added exception statement (assuming that your 9-12-4 and 9-12-5 post above is the NCAA rule).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is more than just a change of one unusual interpretation.

Please offer how the NFHS rule change impacts a play other than the "unusual interpretation".

(Note: I love JRutledge's adjective "unusual" to describe the (hopefully) now extinct NFHS interpretation. Dinosaurs were also "unusual", but I wouldn't want a Tyrannosaurus Rex hanging out in my backyard. As such, I never liked this "unusual interpretation", and would love to see it relegated to an "unusual interpretation" museum.)

(Another note: There was a Black Bear in my frontyard last week, common for many of you, but very rare and certainly "unusual" for my little part of my little corner of Connecticut. It was a first for me, and I was totally fascinated, but also a little scared, I made sure that the front door of my house was unlocked and available for me to make a quick entrance if needed.)

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 it 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)

New 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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 it 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)

New 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.

I am still just slightly confused. Does this new "exception" now make that case (situation 7) legal? When the exception indicates "from the frontcourt" I expect it to imply a "to" location, such as the backcourt. In the case however, the ball never had backcourt status. Should not the exception read perhaps as "..deflected in the frontcourt.."? (Notice the use of word "in" instead of "from".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Does this new "exception" now make that case (situation 7) legal?

Hopefully it does, getting rid of the unusual "simultaneous last to touch, first to touch" interpretation that's been around, and bitterly criticized, for a few years.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bucky

I am still just slightly confused. Does this new "exception" now make that case (situation 7) legal? When the exception indicates "from the frontcourt" I expect it to imply a "to" location, such as the backcourt. In the case however, the ball never had backcourt status. Should not the exception read perhaps as "..deflected in the frontcourt.."? (Notice the use of word "in" instead of "from".

The quote from the later released "Comment..." apparently answers that. The deflection does take place "in" the frontcourt and the frontcourt status of the ball remains when it's touched by an offensive player who then is standing in the backcourt. That's the same condition expressed in that "situation 7" you cite.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The quote from the later released "Comment..." apparently answers that. The deflection does take place "in" the frontcourt and the frontcourt status of the ball remains when it's touched by an offensive player who then is standing in the backcourt. That's the same condition expressed in that "situation 7" you cite.

Indeed, after my post I read the comments. Thanks for clarification.

(could never get over Simon's giant mouth)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

(could never get over Simon's giant mouth)

James Taylor found it to be beautiful (at least for a few years).

[JRutledge]

Again I think some here are making this too complicated. We will only know for sure when they come out with the new interpretations (that are more than one interpretation).

All we know is what they have changed. The "unusual" interpretation that was so controversial did not follow the rules at the time was either changed to reflect this new rule or it was kept for some reason. Either way, that has nothing to do with the NCAA Rule, because the NCAA Rule was the same as the NF Rule for years and they did not have such a silly interpretation. We will only know when all the literature comes out. I would hope they would address this as they made a POE to discuss this before last season.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We will only know for sure when they come out with the new interpretations. All we know is what they have changed. We will only know when all the literature comes out.

You certainly may be right, but without any additional rule changes (and we've seen them all in the press release) I don't see the current (new) rule doing anything other than fixing the unusual interpretation. I don't see an editorial change (or likewise) making a big impact on the backcourt rule without further rule change language, and, like I've said, we've already seen all the rule changes.

We'll just have to wait and see, but my money's on just the unusual interpretation fix, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, just a few bucks. We all know that the NFHS is certainly capable of doing some odd things with some odd unintended consequences.

I'm still waiting for the NFHS to clean up the "team control throwin only for fouls not for backcourt" fiasco with an actual rule change, not with just a Point of Emphasis (that's not available to new officials). I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

Remember this:

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
2. Team control, throw-in. The relevance of team control during a throw-in only applies when a member of the throw- in team fouls. Such fouls shall be ruled team control fouls. Team control during a throw-in is NOT intended to be the same as player control/team control inbounds. Team control inbounds is established when a player from either team who has inbound status gains control of the ball. During the throw-in, 10-seconds, 3-seconds, frontcourt status, backcourt status, closely guarded, etc., are NOT factors as there has yet to be player control/team control obtained inbounds. With specific regard to the backcourt violation; a team may not be the last to touch a live ball in the front court and then be the first to touch a live ball in the backcourt, provided that team has establish player control/team control on the playing court (either in the backcourt or frontcourt). BY RULE EXCEPTION, during a throw-in a team may leave the front court, establish player control/team control while airborne and land in the backcourt. This is a legal play and ONLY applies to the first player of the offense who touches the ball PRIOR to the end of the throw-in.

How are new officials to know this without access to a 2017-18 NFHS Rulebook?

Stupid NFHS.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Please offer how the NFHS rule change impacts a play other than the "unusual interpretation"...[/I]

It can't. This wording won't allow any change but for that misguided 2006-07 and 2017-18 Interpretation:

"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." ("Basketball Comments on the Rules", May 17, 2018)

By stating that they're applying this only to a deflected ball "that still has frontcourt status," this change cannot go as far as the NCAA-M did as their backcourt rule was revised last year to say, "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."

Right?

Now watch them prove me wrong by coming out with an Interpretation or Casebook situation to the contrary.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Now watch them prove me wrong by coming out with an Interpretation or Casebook situation to the contrary.

I can't wait. I'm eagerly waiting with anticipation and bated breath. Don't make me post that great Carly Simon video again (it's a great song, and she's gorgeous).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Don't make me post that great Carly Simon video again (it's a great song, and she's gorgeous).

I couldn't resist another look at her. Gorgeous, just gorgeous, as well as a great singer, and a great song writer. Too bad she suffered from stage fright.