NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I actually don't think the new change is confusing. It seems pretty obvious to me....and it isn't the NCAA rule.

That is the problem. You only "think" you do not know. Kind of what we are talking about here. Until the information comes out we are all only "thinking" what the rule actually does. Because there is certainly no evidence that the rule was changed for one interpretation as nothing supports that position. Actually, the NCAA Rule is more logical because it was a recent NCAA change and now the NF uses almost similar language. But as stated before, I am willing to have final judgment when everything comes out. Apparently people that have no direct line of information are unwilling to wait as well.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Apparently people that have no direct line of information are unwilling to wait as well.

I can wait. My local board "new rules meeting" won't be until late October. My refresher exam won't be due until mid November. My first scrimmage won't be until late November. My first game won't be until early December. But until then, for discussion purposes (since I won't be taking an exam, or officiating any games or scrimmages), I'm going with the rule as it was written and publicized, and don't need to speculate as to whether, or not, the rule is the same as the NCAA rule because, in its present form, it isn't. That may change in the fall, or a year from now, or after that, or never, but it isn't the same right now.

NCAA: 9-12-5 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.

NFHS 9-9-1: EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I actually don't think the new change is confusing. It seems pretty obvious to me....and it isn't the NCAA rule.

Except that the exception really has nothing to do with the rule that it addresses. The rule that it addresses talks about an offensive player touching the ball last in the front court. The exception talks about a defensive player touching the ball last in the frontcourt.

They would have been better off just adding the verbage from "Basketball Comments on the Rules", May 17, 2018" quoted upstream as a note to the BC rule.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can wait. My local board "new rules meeting" won't be until late October. My refresher exam won't be due until mid November. My first scrimmage won't be until late November. My first game won't be until early December. But until then, for discussion purposes (since I won't be taking an exam, or officiating any games or scrimmages), I'm going with the rule as it was written and publicized, and don't need to speculate as to whether, or not, the rule is the same as the NCAA rule because, in its present form, it isn't. That may change in the fall, or a year from now, or after that, or never, but it isn't the same right now.

Well the NF Rulebooks are out in like late July or early August if they are publishing in the same timing as they have in the past. There will be literature out long before November likely giving incite on the issue. Now I am not saying they will clear up your personal concerns. I would suspect that the NF will sloppily resolve this and create more questions as they already have. But again we will have to see. And what I mean by saying that the rule is the same as the NCAA, I believe the intent of the application is the same. But we already know the NF hates to take on other level rules while at the same time trying to create the very same rule application. That is kind of why we are here in the first place because they clearly wanted to take the NCAA Team Control Rule, but for some reason did not want to use the already existing language. But clearly, they would come back and say how they wanted the rule to be applied (which was basically the same as the NCAA in every way except that stupid interpretation).

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is the problem. You only "think" you do not know. Kind of what we are talking about here. Until the information comes out we are all only "thinking" what the rule actually does. Because there is certainly no evidence that the rule was changed for one interpretation as nothing supports that position. Actually, the NCAA Rule is more logical because it was a recent NCAA change and now the NF uses almost similar language. But as stated before, I am willing to have final judgment when everything comes out. Apparently people that have no direct line of information are unwilling to wait as well.

Then why do you keep posting what you think it is about instead of just waiting for the clarification to come?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then why do you keep posting what you think is about instead of just waiting for the clarification to come?

Because the comments are directed towards me and Raymond. That is kind of how it works.

Peace

[Rich]

There isn't enough popcorn in the world.

I guess if I was a good moderator, I'd moderate here, but I'm just so damned entertained.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

There isn't enough popcorn in the world.

I guess if I was a good moderator, I'd moderate here, but I'm just so damned entertained.

Yeah, I've been staying out of this for days but the absurdity of it is certainly amusing. Some things never change.

[BillyMac]

Always listen to bob. Wait ... I'm being told ... No opinion? But we always listen to bob. We need bob's opinion. Never mind.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not saying they will clear up your personal concerns.

Actually, I have no concerns at this time. I'm fairly confident that I understand the rule as presently written and its intent, purpose, and interpretation. I will have concerns if the (new) rule language stays the same (as the press release) and the interpretation is that the NFHS backcourt deflection rule is the same as the NCAA backcourt deflection rule because, in it's present form, they aren't the same. It (NCAA) rule seems like a good rule. If the NFHS has indeed already switched to the NCAA version, as JRutledge, and others, have assumed, hopefully the NFHS will make some adjustments in the rule language somewhere down the line so the written rule matches the interpretation.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would suspect that the NF will sloppily resolve this and create more questions as they already have.

Agree 100%. See "throwin team control for fouls but not for backcourt" 2017-18 Point of Emphasis, which should be written into the rules for all to see, especially new officials. Same thing with the 2012-13 Point of Emphasis regarding above the shoulder situations (above the shoulder, below the shoulder, excessive swinging, not excessive swinging, contact, no contact, violation, personal foul, intentional foul, flagrant foul). How are new officials without a 2012-13 Rulebook supposed to have a reference for this? By listening to stories in the oral tradition from veteran officials as everybody sits around the campfire splitting bones to eat the bone marrow? And of course, worst of all, see the 2017-18 stupid interpretation (SITUATION 7). "Sloppily" is certainly an accurate description.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Always listen to bob. Wait ... I'm being told ... No opinion? But we always listen to bob. We need bob's opinion. Never mind.

My opinion is that the thread should have been closed about 140 posts ago -- right after one person said "is this just to correct the interp" and someone else responded "or is it to go to the NCAAM rule" and the corrct third person said "we'll have to wait to see."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... right after one person said "is this just to correct the interp" and someone else responded "or is it to go to the NCAAM rule" and the corrct third person said "we'll have to wait to see."

Good summary.