Last to touch/first to touch

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

We were just told, that if the defensive player deflects the ball and it goes into the back court anyone can retrieve it. I asked specifically about last to touch/first to touch and was told it was no longer a violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

We were just told, that if the defensive player deflects the ball and it goes into the back court anyone can retrieve it. I asked specifically about last to touch/first to touch and was told it was no longer a violation.

Key phrase, "defensive player". Does that mean that the defensive player was the last to touch the ball before the ball headed toward the backcourt?

Now go back and ask what happens if a defensive player, while in the frontcourt, deflects a ball that remains in the frontcourt and that loose ball then hits an offensive player, without gaining control, who now sends the loose ball, while still in team control, but not in player control, into the backcourt. Can anyone pick it up without a violation?

I'm more interested in the word, "offense", or lack of, as in even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt. That's the key as to whether, or not, the NFHS has fully switched to the NCAA rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

... if the defensive player deflects the ball and it goes into the back court anyone can retrieve it.

Ignoring the odd interpretation, if that's all the information we have (above), that's always been true, for at least the past four decades.

"Nothing to see here, move along folks".

Hopefully, the NFHS will clarify this soon. I now find myself leaning a little bit more toward JRutledge's interpretation of a full switch to the NCAA rule. Just leaning, and just a little bit more.

And I'm now taking all my bets off the table, I just want to be a spectator.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ignoring the odd interpretation, if that's all the information we have (above), that's always been true, for at least the past four decades.

"Nothing to see here, move along folks".

Hopefully, the NFHS will clarify this soon. I now find myself leaning a little bit more toward JRutledge's interpretation of a full switch to the NCAA rule. Just leaning, and just a little bit more.

And I'm now taking all my bets off the table, I just want to be a spectator.

We were told.....If team A has possession of ball in the front court, the ball is deflected by B and team A is the last to touch in front court and ball goes into the back court anyone may retrieve the ball.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

We were told.....If team A has possession of ball in the front court, the ball is deflected by B and team A is the last to touch in front court and ball goes into the back court anyone may retrieve the ball.

Which is what the NCAA rule is as of last season. Wish the NFHS would put out something that indicates they are moving in that same direction.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Which is what the NCAA rule is as of last season. Wish the NFHS would put out something that indicates they are moving in that same direction.

This may be our state association interpretation of a messy rule. I just know that the staff and officials at the camp were directed to not call last to touch/first to touch a violation.

[JRutledge]

I'm going to suspect that people in states have the details about the rules. Again because we have people here going nuts over this, does not mean that those concerns were not already discussed. I just do not think (But I know I do not know for sure) that this rule was to allow previous interpretations to stand. This rule was always a "cheap" penalty for a play that did not go out of bounds. I cannot imagine that they really wanted to keep some silly contested interpretation. I would not be surprised that many did not even know that interpretation was even there until last year. I can imagine someone sparked the change with that fact alone.

Peace

[sj]

Rut - I have to say that some of these multi-page threads remind me of some of the epic battles you used to have with Yaworski over on the other board. I'm assuming you remember him

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would not be surprised that many did not even know that interpretation was even there until last year.

Well, at least one person knew about it and came up with a proposal to fix it, a proposal that made its way all the way up the ladder to being a final proposal that was reviewed, and voted on, by the NFHS rules committee.

Let's recall that the NFHS rules committee gave serious consideration to two slightly different proposals involving backcourt:

Proposal A: Exemption: 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 last to touch the ball, without player control, before it went into the backcourt. Rationale: The exemption to this rule would alleviate the official's duty to determine if a ball was simultaneously touched, by the defense and then offense (in a backcourt violation situation), and helps them to continue to officiate the defense. The definition added would clear up confusion as to what a "loose ball" is and what it is not. Other Rules Affected: Loose ball: When a player is holding, dribbling, or passing a ball, a loose ball occurs if the player a) fumbles the ball, b) has an interrupted dribble, c) loses player control when a defender bats or deflects the ball from their possession, d) has a pass deflected, or e) releases the ball during a try.

Proposal B: 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. A pass in the frontcourt that is deflected by a defensive player so that the ball goes into the backcourt may be recovered by either team. Rationale: To correct a likely prior omission and ensure that a team is not unfairly disadvantaged. This also makes the play situation on the deflected pass consistent with other codes with very similar team control and backcourt rules.

It looks like Proposal A is pretty much a complete switch to the NCAA backcourt rule (I'm not an NCAA official, so I may be wrong). Note the "even if the offense was last to touch the ball, without player control, before it went into the backcourt". In fact, note that "offense" is mentioned twice in Proposal A.

Proposal B appears to be simply be a "correction" for the "prior" odd "play situation" (annual interpretation). "Deflected by a defensive player so that the ball goes into the backcourt" simply means just that, by a defensive player that then goes into the backcourt, it doesn't say by an offensive player. Proposal B doesn't even mention an offensive player, other than "may be recovered by either team".

Now, here's the new rule: 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.

Does the new NFHS rule look more like Proposal A, or Proposal B?

If the NFHS wanted to make the full switch to the NCAA rule, why didn't they simply select Proposal A?

Could it be that the NFHS rules committee didn't want to make the full switch to the NCAA Rule (at this point in time) and wanted to simply fix the stupid interpretation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

We were just told, that if the defensive player deflects the ball and it goes into the back court anyone can retrieve it. I asked specifically about last to touch/first to touch and was told it was no longer a violation.

I received similar info today as well.

If that is truly the case, they couldn't have done a worse job of updating the rule to reflect. that.

Originally Posted by OKREF

In a staff meeting for a camp, and was just told this is no longer a violation.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I received similar info today as well.

If that is truly the case, they couldn't have done a worse job of updating the rule to reflect. that.

Thing is, are the ppl telling you that stuff just assuming that's what the new rule change means, or are do they know for real.

My guess is they are assuming. If no one on this board knows for real, then no one probably knows the truth yet.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Thing is, are the ppl telling you that stuff just assuming that's what the new rule change means, or are do they know for real.

My guess is they are assuming. If no one on this board knows for real, then no one probably knows the truth yet.

Nothing definitive.

[BillyMac]

I was on record, based on all that's officially come out of the NFHS, that this was not a full change to the NCAA backcourt rule.

However, it now appears that some Forum members are receiving information from "above" that the full change is a go.

I wonder from how far up the ladder this information descends. Are these trainers/clinicians/camp observers/interpreters assuming based on the already released NFHS information, as many here on the Forum, including me, have done and debated, or are they really getting the information trickling down from way up the ladder?

The NFHS is not the CIA. There have to be a few reliable leaks from unnamed informed sources. Is that what some are getting?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... they couldn't have done a worse job of updating the rule to reflect that.

Agree. The released language only points to the overturning of the odd interpretation, not to a full change to the NCAA backcourt rule. If indeed, the change is to a full NCAA switch, why didn't they include the full NCAA language? Why didn't the NFHS include: even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

[JRutledge]

I agree the wording is not great, but not sure why we are again going over this and making it this complicated. This is basically the NCAA Rule. Why would you consider a ruling that was flawed in the first place? Again the exception is defense deflecting the ball. Keep it simple. The NF would have to prove to me they want to stick with something.

Not very hard for me, I am not considering any ruling this summer in my games. Calling it the way the NCAA rule states until otherwise stated.

Peace