Last to touch/first to touch

[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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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

Naw, this is not that bad. This is at the very least reasonable in tone.

Peace

[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?

[JRutledge]

Billy,

I am really not agonizing over this situation. The wording is not relevant to me. We already know the NF for some reason does not like to take on actual NCAA wording, but love to take on their logic for the rule that is changed (like Team Control Fouls). To me this is a discussion about semantics. But we will again find out in a month or so when the books are published.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... their logic for the rule that is changed (like Team Control Fouls).

The infamous "team control on throwins that isn't team control if it dovetails with the backcourt rule" fiasco, that was only fixed with a Point of Emphasis and never made it's way into the actual rulebook.

Is that logical? Will that ever be fixed?