Last to touch/first to touch
 

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

No longer a violation when deflected by the defense right?

So basically you are saying they adopted the NCAA Men's rule right?

Peace

Yes, when deflected by defense, anyone can retrieve the ball.

Well that would be the NCAA Rule.

Now if you do not mind us asking. Who told you that or why are they so confident that is the rule? I think it is obvious, but I just want to know why you are convinced that is the actual interpretation since many here seemed to be convinced this was about just an interpretation?

Peace

Into The Backcourt ...
 

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?

Who would have put it in the backcourt in your situation?

Peace

The NCAA-M rule isn't the NFHS rule . . . . . . . . . thus far.

Sounds like the NCAA Rule to me.

Peace

Two Different Situations ...
 

With the new NFHS rule announced, and only what we've seen so far, in the first situation, if an offensive player touches the ball in the backcourt, no violation. In the second situation, if an offensive player touches the ball in the backcourt, violation.

If the NFHS rules turns out to be the same as the NCAA rule, then I believe that it's a different story, and I'll leave it up to the college guys to answer.

What is the first and the second situation?

Peace

What's Different, If Anything, No Crystal Balls Please ...
 

Two Situations ...
 

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.

What are we all missing and you are getting?

Peace

Simultaneously ...
 

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.

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

Patience ...
 

Agree. Patience is a virtue.

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

There has been no guidance from the NFHS that says such, so that would be hearsay unless that person is on the NFHS rules committee.

Camp director of our state association.

Video Request
 

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,
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

Freddy's Not Dead ...
 

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.

Embedding is your friend.
 

Hope that helps.

Peace

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

Tip Signal ...
 

Isn't he nearest official giving the "tip" signal to indicate that the defender deflected the ball? This is a relatively new (I still haven't gotten used to using it) official IAABO signal, and I don't know it it's an official NCAA signal.

The first time I through the video, I (like JRutledge) also believed that the defender didn't touch the ball. The second time through I noted that "tip" signal by the nearest official and figured that the had a better look than me.

Odd Interpretation ...
 

.. and that's the basis for the odd interpretation.

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)

Whether, or not, the NFHS makes the full switch to the NCAA rule, one thing is for sure, that the odd interpretation is gone, long gone. So long. Farewell. Sayonara. Arrivederci. Goodbye.

My comment was not about the tip signal. My comment was about the play. It did not look like the defender touched the ball in the video. I have seen officials default to a signal and there was no touch that took place. I am just saying that if the dribbler had a bad dribble and knocked the ball in the BC on his own, then it is a violation under NCAA Rules and the current NF Rule.

Peace

Backcourt ...
 

First time through, I saw the same as you. Could the official have gotten himself straight lined and guessed?

I think he guessed. Now if he was right the angle we had was not great.

Peace

First Hand Clarification
 

The clip is intended to be an illustration, so one using it as an instructional tool might want to set it up so as to make the point intended.

At the risk of being castigated as a ballwatcher, I was C on this play and saw that the defender did deflect the ball after which the dribbler deflected it into the backcourt and then was first to touch. This defensive deflection, though slight, can be detected when viewing the clip in slow motion. This was a high school game, the first of last season, and the call was not correct. But it made for a good learning opportunity at that time and I think the clip can be of value as a resource to teach what the recently revised NCAA-M backcourt rule now considers an exception.

Other clips do exist, but the debatable point on several of them is whether the "last to touch" offensive player actually executed a controlled dribble as the ball went toward his backcourt.

Freddy,

I will take your word for it. It was hard to tell and my first take on that video.

Peace

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.

Even If The Offense ...
 

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.

Old News ...
 

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.

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.

Nothing definitive.

Trickle Down From Above ...
 

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?

Even If The Offense Was The Last To Touch The Ball ...
 

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.

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

So, again, as I stated in the previous conversation, the NFHS is butchering a rule change/clarification.

Nothing in what the NFHS has released so far has stated that last-to-touch/first-to-touch is no longer a violation. I guess we are to assume they mean in a situation where the defense deflects the ball. They have only publish an exception to a rule that is not even an exception, it's an entirely different play, and that "exception" now allows an offensive player to catch a ball in flight while in the back court if the defense deflects it.

This why all your rhetorical questions to us (the Forum) on the subject are useless because the NFHS doesn't even know what it wants to do nor how to publicize it.

I agree totally. I just still think that this has little or nothing to do with one ruling. We will find out if the play is still in the casebook or there is another ruling that contradicts it or if it stays. But none of this is known until the literature comes out. I am still convinced this in practice is the NCAA Rule, but I it was as usual not implemented very well by the NF. Same thing they did with the Horsecollar tackle in football where they made a certain act illegal but forgot to word it so that it applies in all situations. The NF had to make changes to create the rule for about 3 more years after the change.

Peace

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.

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.

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

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

The Lady Or The Tiger ...
 

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?

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

When Is Team Control Not Team Control ???
 

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?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.e...=0&w=300&h=300