Last to touch/first to touch

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) When deflected by a frontcourt defensive player directly into the backcourt?

2) When deflected by a frontcourt defensive player that then hits a frontcourt offensive player in the leg and then goes directly into the backcourt?

I do not see why it matters when the rule you quoted says first to touch after a teammate was the last to touch a ball before it goes in the backcourt, but the exception is if the defense deflected the ball. In other words if the defense did not deflect the ball, you have a violation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS (as of June 8, 2018) 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

What are we all missing and you are getting?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What are we all missing and you are getting?

Getting rid of that pesky interpretation where the defensive player in the frontcourt deflects the ball in the direction of the backcourt and an offensive player catches the airborne ball that never actually touches the backcourt (never really achieving backcourt status) while standing in the backcourt, thus simultaneously being the last to touch a ball with frontcourt status and the first to touch in the backcourt. Maybe the interpretation was correct by the most strict adherence to the rule language, but by the intent and purpose of the rule, most of us would never call it that way in a real game.

At this point in time, with all we've seen so far from the NFHS, it appears that the ball may not be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

Of course, that can all change when the annual interpretations come out.

[JRutledge]

Well to me they would have to prove that is still the ruling. Otherwise, I do not think it applies. But as I said before, we will know when everything comes out. End of story.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... we will know when everything comes out.

Agree. Patience is a virtue.

“Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.” (John Lennon)

[Freddy]

I'm looking for two video clip to illustrate, for training purposes:

1) What the 2017-18 NFHS Interpretation Situation 7 would look like (which, apparently, the newly announced Exception to rule 9-9-1 would retract), and

2) What the NCAA-M's backcourt rule 4-12-5 looks like (in the frontcourt the ball deflects off the defender then off the offensive player into the backcourt where either team may then recover the ball).

For as much debate as there is about these two rulings, I can't find a clip of either nor an example of either in all the game video I have in archive. Maybe the NCAA-M distributed a video example when they changed their rule a couple of years ago. Can anybody post a clip of each example?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I'm looking for two video clip to illustrate, for training purposes:

1) What the 2017-18 NFHS Interpretation Situation 7 would look like (which, apparently, the newly announced Exception to rule 9-9-1 would retract), and

2) What the NCAA-M's backcourt rule 4-12-5 looks like (in the frontcourt the ball deflects off the defender then off the offensive player into the backcourt where either team may then recover the ball).

Freddy,
To use for training purposes, here's one example of what the NCAA-M's backcourt rule 4-12-5 looks like: NCAA-M's Backcourt Rule Exception - Clip 1
And here's another: NCAA-M Backcourt Rule Exception - Clip 2

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... the NCAA-M's backcourt rule 4-12-5 looks like: NCAA-M's Backcourt Rule Exception - Clip 1

Nice clip. Thanks.

Let's hold onto this in case JRutledge is correct and the NFHS really has fully moved to the NCAA rule. We should also hold onto this in case the NFHS hasn't made the full switch to demonstrate the difference between the NCAA exception and the NFHS exception.

It would be nice to get a clip of the stupid interpretation, so we know what is now allowed, not that we really need it, because many of us would have allowed it in our games before the new exception anyway.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice clip. Thanks.

Let's hold onto this in case JRutledge is correct and the NFHS really has fully moved to the NCAA rule. We should also hold onto this in case the NFHS hasn't made the full switch to demonstrate the difference between the NCAA exception and the NFHS exception.

It would be nice to get a clip of the stupid interpretation, so we know what is now allowed, not that we really need it, because many of us would have allowed it in our games before the new exception anyway.

Im betting that that play is and will still be a violation under NFHS. The way the rule reads in the press release the only that will be changing is that the requirement for the offense to let the ball bounce in the BC first before being able to recover a deflection by the defense is the only thing that has changed. Guess I will see at the state interpreter's meeting.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Freddy,
To use for training purposes, here's one example of what the NCAA-M's backcourt rule 4-12-5 looks like:

NCAA-M's Backcourt Rule Exception - Clip 1


NCAA-M Backcourt Rule Exception - Clip 2

Hope that helps.

Peace

[JRutledge]

The only thing about the second play is it looks like the defender did not touch the ball. If that is the case, then this is a violation under NCAA Rules.

Peace