NFHS Update
 

No shot clock!!!
 

This is what I expected.

Peace

And we can now officially put an end to the most bemoaned rule in this forum's history:

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.

The only issue left is are they going to take on the NCAA Rule in total or are they going to play games with the language to confuse the issue?

I hope they just take on the rule from the NCAA and leave it at that. Now no more having to state, "That is not the NF Rule" to coaches or even other officials.

Peace

I never really had an issue with this rule when it came to coaches. In the event that one did complain, it went something like this:

“But the ball was tipped!”
“Yes, Coach, but your player was the last to touch it.” That almost always ended the dispute.

That being said, I don’t really have any issue with this change. Deflection = anyone can touch it. Easy enough.

Another year, another rules update without the shot clock. Just the way it should be.

Basically, not a big year for changes. You were not anticipating more changes?

Eight States currently use a shot clock, why all the resistance since shot clock is used at all other higher levels of basketball?

Eight states forfeited their voice on the rules committee, as well.

It's a solution in search of a problem at the high school level. It won't make bad basketball any better; it will just make it worse.

You can't compare the high school level to higher levels on this issue. Most high school players (not to mention wreck ball players, where the leagues also use NFHS rules) are not playing at the next level, so quite frankly it's not the NFHS's job to prepare players for those levels. Also, there are enough bad tables at lower level colleges–you really want to add a shot clock into the responsibilities of already bad tables at the varsity level all the way down to wreck ball?

I could go on.

Not really. I think there is a trend to not make wholesale changes with the NF. For example football changes this year were very minimal as well. I was mostly figuring that they were not going to bring in the shot clock or the RA as some suggested was seriously on the table to be added.

Peace

Administrators. No shot clock was proposed this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one coming in the next few years, once the old guard of administrators retire.

Why would administrators not want a shot clock? Money is one factor (ADs would have to pay for the shot clock, and would have to use a combination of state (or local) tax money and booster club money to do so), and change is another one. Administrators are used to basketball without a shot clock, so it is their normal. They may not know (or care) about basketball at other levels having a shot clock (and being better for it, IMO). Even if they do know, they may be uncomfortable "rocking the boat" to change high school basketball in their state, or nationally, unless there is enough demand from their state to make them feel uncomfortable. MD, NY, MA, CA, WA, DC, RI, ND, and SD have all had demands from coaches to adopt the shot clock, and have adopted it. IL, WI, and other states are considering it, as seen in news articles on the internet. I have been told by an anonymous source that officials and coaches on the NFHS committee are overwhelmingly in support of the shot clock, but administrators are against it. If the rules committee has significant membership changes, then it would not be surprising to see NFHS adopting a shot clock. In the meantime, keep sending proposals to your local state rules interpreters if you want shot clocks, changes to the bonus rule, etc.

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

Completely unnecessary...will make more games worse than it will make better.

WI is not considering it at the moment. They adopted it and the administrator backlash was so severe, they rescinded it.

As long as administrators are on the committee to keep coaches in check, it won't go national.

You are actually very wrong about Illinois. Illinois was not the usage of the shot clock this outside of the NF. All that was discussed is it was possible and there were people in the know that thought this "could pass" this year. It did not pass, so I would suspect the IHSA would not do anything outside of these rules changes this year. It is not the IHSA's style to do such a thing this drastic. And if the shot clock came into play in the NF Rules this year, the IHSA said it would not have been this coming year (that was stated to clinicians throughout the state) because of cost primarily. Not a major problem in this state. Many of the top teams play an uptempo style and score in the 50s and 60s is not unusual (at least on the boy's side).

Peace

It appears they went to the NCAA Rule that was changed last year.

I am cautious that we do not know what is official until we see the final rule (Someone said it takes the NF 3 years to get a rule right), but they seemed to take the NCAA language in describing the rule change. Because if they are trying to advocate a previous mistake, then they could do that editorially, not with a rules change.

Time will ultimately tell. You certainly gave me pause, but I do not see how this is not the NCAA change that was made last year?

Peace

Statements much like this have been made for 20+ years. No change yet. At some point, you will likely be right.

The funny part about what people assume is the "old guard" they do not realize that what keeps people in administrative roles are often what kept others in administrative roles. An Athletic Director, for example, is not going to get along suggesting to spend more money and resources just because of something another level does. That is the kind of thing that might get you removed from your position if things do not work out.

Peace

Mary Struckhoff -- the former NFHS rules editor who didn't understand the rules!

The athletic director sees the bigger picture. The principal sees a bigger picture. The superintendent sees the biggest picture.

I can tell you that once WI passed the shot clock (temporarily) it did not take long for all 24 of the athletic directors in the conference I'm the commissioner of to unanimously oppose it.

I'll be surprised if this is something that goes national while I'm still involved.

The "old guard" has changed multiple times over the past couple decades where the shot clock has been put on the table every spring, and guess what? It still hasn't been implemented. These cries for a high school shot clock are not new; the same complaints existed 10-20 years ago.

I also highly doubt high school officials are "overwhelmingly in support of the shot clock." Also, since when are officials on the rules committee? I also doubt the same for coaches; a majority might want the shot clock, but I doubt it's "overwhelming." I think you might need to look for a new source.

What happens in many areas of life is that when the old guard fades away and the new generation takes over, that new generation has, by that time, become a lot wiser and realizes that some of the things the old guard did were actually not so bad, even good.

A ball deflected by B, then touched by A that goes into the backcourt hasn't been deflected into the backcourt by B...It's been deflected by A.

Agreed. Seems to me that if A touches after B and ball goes into backcourt, if A touches, it will still be a backcourt

Simultaneous Last To Touch And First To Touch ???
 

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)

As someone who has thumped the shot clock drum in various means and capacities I can tell you its not an old guard vs youth movement issue.

Its logistic vs sentiment/philosophy.

All arguments for the shot clock have to do with changing the way the game is played, aligning it with other levels, preparing kids to play, giving kids autonomy, making it a play making type game vs a coach controlled game etc. List goes on and on but its basically basketball as a community and a concept moving in a different direction, that is benefited by a a shot clock.

All arguments against the shot clock are practical ones. Budgetary concerns, coaching concerns, table issues etc. Logistical and practical problems that people cannot/ do not feel they should have to overcome in their position.

The reality is that so long as AD's and coaches jobs/livelihoods/paychecks are tied to effective management of their team/programs and success a majority will not be in favour of the shot clock. The shot clock increases responsibilities and costs while altering styles of play and game management for coaches, players, officials, and staff. It eliminates potential strategies and coach control. IT requires coaches to coach differently. Shot clocks are asking AD's and coaches for the "good of the game" to take on logistical and fundamental differences to how they operate, when operational complications can cost them their jobs.

They are not going to do those things for philosophical reasons in most cases.

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.

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."

That's has nothing to do with my post.

Whether or not it was the target, it fixes that anomaly. That's why I posted what I posted at the beginning of the thread.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

This Is the Best Possible Wordage???
 

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/

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?

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

With the NCAA rule, it was my understanding that cause mattered -- you have to interpret whether the deflection "causes the ball to go into the backcourt" or whether it goes into the backcourt for some other reason.

I see that as different from the determination as to who touched it last in the FC. Your not interpreting what caused the ball to go into the backcourt -- All you have to see to make the correct call is who touched it last in the FC.

So dumb that they STILL haven’t changed the HS goaltending rule to what every other legitimate rule set (NBA, NCAA-M, NCAA-F, FIBA) uses.

There is no gray area. Time or time elapsed has nothing to do with the ruling. Once the defense deflects the ball, the offense is free to regain PC anywhere on the court no matter who touched it last. And until PC is re-established, there can be no BC violation. So NCAA officials no longer have to keep track of who touched the ball last once the defense deflects/bats the ball. As someone who works both rule sets, the college rule is lot simpler to adjudicate.

That is most definitely incorrect.

It is not subjective at all. There has to be a deflection.
Again at the end of the day, this is about wording. But there is nothing that is asking you to interpret how the ball is deflected in the NCAA Rule.

Peace

In that case, I've seen it miscalled where the offense gains PC while heading towards the backcourt but before going into the BC....without a violation.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ptu_0KM-2_8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ONCKDv970QQ" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Would High School have the same rulings on these videos as NCAA?

If they are adopting the Men's rule it would be. But for some reason, people think they are just changing one interpretation, which is not any evidence this is about one interpretation. They clearly use similar language from the NCAA. I guess we will have to see in the long run, but my bet is that this is the NCAA Rule adoption.

Peace

The play below posted by JRut is an example where judgement is required. This is a objective-based call in HS as the offense was last to touch in the FC. It seems like more of a judgement call at the college level as the official must determine when (and where on the court) PC is re-established.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ONCKDv970QQ" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

Again, we have an atrociously worded rule from the NFHS. The EXCEPTION does not address the rule about the ball being last touched in the FC by the offense.

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

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

Your shifting all over the place now. We have to judge PC all the time. In HS games under 2017-18 NFHS rules, if the defense deflects a pass and the offense chases it down near the division line, we would have to determine PC. No different on this play.

Under 2017-18 NFHS rules, if players from both teams touch the ball before going to the BC, we have to know who touched it last to determine a BC violation. In NCAA, we don't have to worry about that detail.

Again, I work both rule sets. Never once heard a college official complain about the new rule at the college level. I have heard plenty of college officials praise the new rule.

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.

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

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. :rolleyes:

Peace

Don't Leave Home Without It ...
 

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

[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:)

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?

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.

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?

Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...
 

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.j...=0&w=194&h=167

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?

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.

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

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).

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.

I would rather worry about when PC is established than who touched it last.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Nothing wrong with you liking the interpretation, but it often was a confusing rule for many involved and to me why not be in step with every other level in this minor area of the game?

Subjective how? If the defense deflects the ball, all bets are off to how the ball got to the backcourt in NCAA Rules. I hope and pray that is what the NF is doing or we will have another silly distinction that will have to explain when the defense deflects the ball.

But the new rule/language does not say anything about an exception to the rule if the offensive player is the one that deflects the ball. And this is why a few of us think this either has to be the NCAA rule or they worded this so poorly that all they did is create other issues. Now only interpretations can clear this up at this point. And even if this new rule was made to clear up one interpretation, then this was a lot to change one interpretation that could have just been changed with just getting rid of that interpretation in the first place.

Peace

That would mean someone would have to admit they were wrong. This way, by calling it a rule change, they can be right all along. :/

Until we have all the information including interpretation, we honestly have no idea what old interpretation was cleared up. It is possible that they could stick to the same interpretation and have changed part of the rule. Even the NCAA rule had to be clarified so that it was clear what was changed last year.

Peace

Objective/Subjective ...
 

As much as I hate to comment on NCAA rules, that I know absolutely nothing about, I believe I know why some Forum members believe that there is some subjective criteria in the NCAA rule. All bets may not be off if the defense deflects a ball and it somehow goes into the backcourt. NCAA rules: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball away from A1. A1 attempts to gain control of the ball, maybe he gains player control, maybe he doesn't gain player control. The ball then heads into the backcourt, where its picked up by A2.

The subjective part is the official deciding, in a possibly bang bang play, whether A1 had regained player control (backcourt), or hadn't regained player control (no backcourt).

Of course we make these objective/subjective calls all the time in a game, so it's difficult to figure out if it's an objective call (like stepping on a boundary line), or subjective call (like gaining an illegal advantage on a foul).

One official's objective call may be another's subjective call. Sometimes they just blend together.

NFHS: 2 players on the ground and then all of a sudden the ball spurts free towards the division line and I don't know who touched it last. If the balls goes OOB, the play is dead and I can ask for help. If the ball heads towards the division line do I kill the play after PC and ask for help? At the college level I don't have to worry about who touched it last.

If you are really in doubt, treat it as an inadvertent whistle sitation, and follow that procedure (AP if no team control, award to the team "in control", which would be A, if the ball were to remain inbounds). However, this situation will be unlikely in a real game.

I Know More About Dark Matter Than I Know About NCAA Rules ...
 

My high school game, if as the trail, I don't know who touched it last, I'm not making a backcourt violation call. I try to only make calls that I'm sure about.

The out of bounds is different. I will sound my whistle to stop the clock, and not make a direction call. If my partner can't help me, then there is a rule that allows me to go the alternating possession arrow. There is no such rule for a unsure backcourt call, and only a backcourt call will stop the clock.

My post was not to reject, or defend, the NCAA backcourt rule, it was just my guess as to why some Forum members may feel that there is some subjective aspect to the rule.

So I'm guessing about something that I don't know anything about.

Take my opinion, and $1.69, and that will get you a large cup of black coffee at McDonald's.

OK, but don't you have to make similar decisions if you were to grant a timeout or start a closely guarded count? What is subjective if you get the ball and have player control, a player taking the ball to the BC on your own? And again if they clarify the language or give an interpretation that supports their position (if they are actually adopting the NCAA Rules) then there is nothing subjective.

The rule before this change was subjective too. Often it was very difficult to determine who actually last touched the ball. So why is this so hard? I really do not get that logic at all!!!! And it would be so close in many cases that officials would call nothing because they could not determine who the ball last went off of or even who got to the ball first in the backcourt.

OK, but the rule does not make anything less objective or more subjective. The NCAA Rule is the NCAA rule. If you do not understand it, then just say that. But to not suggest that that rule would make what we have had as more complicated. The NCAA rule made the decision easier to judge.

Peace

He was not suggesting you blow the whistle. But if you have no violation, you do not do anything, but you might not see who the ball actually went off of in many situations near the division line. And if you blow your whistle, you might cause other issues. Also, the situation is not unlikely that Raymond referenced, many plays are that close or crosses coverage areas.

Peace

Decisions ...
 

That's my exact point. We make these subjective decisions all the time during a game. They become second nature to us.

Player control can be, and often is, a very easy ruling to make, but sometimes it isn't, and thus may become subjective. Many here on the Forum have used the "Would I grant a timeout request?" for a player control ruling, which goes a step beyond if the player is dribbling or holding the ball. Even the determination of a dribble can be a subjective decision. Is it intentional, or is the player just making a desperate uncontrolled tap at the ball?

I agree that the NCAA backcourt rule has less loopholes, but some part of it can still be subjective in certain specific circumstances. "After the deflection did player control occur before the ball went into the backcourt?" can be slightly subjective, especially using the "Would I grant a timeout request?" on a bang bang play.

I never said that, all I did was guess about why some Forum members believe that there may be a subjective aspect to some, really only a few, backcourt rulings.

I do not consider the first touch, last touch BC to be subjective. It is a judgment call because you have to see it, but it is not always clear.

Either way, the NCAA took away an element of that call and the most controversial part too. We will just have to see. But then again this is just arguing over an irrelevant point anyway. Why does anyone care about what is subjective or not?

Peace

My point is I don't want to have to blow my whistle and then say it was inadvertent.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

OK, the NFHS rule (now) allows you to not make a backcourt violation call if the ball was deflected by B. If no one touched the ball before it squirted loose, and A previously controlled the ball in the frontcourt, and it was recovered in the backcourt by A, violation. If no one touched the ball before it squirted loose, and A had control of the ball in its backcourt, and the ball goes into B's backcourt, where it is picked up by B, no violation. If there was a deflection by B prior to the ball going to A's backcourt, no call. When in doubt, don't make a backcourt call.

Good, because it isn't.....it is primarily objective with the possible exception of determining whether there was team control or not.
A judgement call IS a subjective call. Judgement is not seeing or not seeing, it is seeing and having the option to decide whether if was an infraction or not....aka subjective.

Not seeing is just not seeing.

No Judge In Judgment ...
 

For example, ruling a dribble to determine team control (which can, and often is, independent of a backcourt determination).

Right next to the definition of subjective in the dictionary is a picture of Camron Rust. Well, not really, but you get my point.

Also, why isn't there a judge in judgment? Don't you think that there should be? After all, that's what judges get paid for, to judge, and to make judgments.

Whatever you call it does not matter. All that matters when does this new exception apply and when does it not apply. If we find out they took on the NCAA Rule (which they are using similar language) with this exception, then that should clear up many things. If they want to make exceptions to an exception, then we are right back to where we were before, but for different reasons.

Peace

Wouldn't the definition be more effective if it was a picture that could arguably be Camron Rust?

Change ...
 

Old 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.

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.

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

It Take Two To Tango ...
 

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.

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).

Unusal 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.

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".

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.

Bitterly Criticized ...
 

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.