NO! NO! NO!

You have to change the rule's words to get to that conclusion. There is no part of the rule that refers to an offensive player in the backcourt touching a ball that, until that touch, had frontcourt status.

The offensive player was NOT the last to touch the ball with frontcourt status BEFORE it returned to the backcourt. "Before" is a very key word that you're skipping and the author of the interpretation also skipped. When the offense touches the ball, it gains backcourt status. But, who was the last to touch it BEFORE the touch that gave the ball backcourt status....the defender. Thus, no violation.

That is the rule and has been for decades. The interpretation, and your explanation above are just fundamentally wrong.

Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?
 

The interpretation makes sense, regardless of its popularity.

If a player is standing out of bounds and touched a ball that was last touched inbounds by an opponent, the opponent does not put the ball out of bounds. Instead the player who is out of bounds puts the ball out of bounds.

Yes, this video shows a play that matches the verbage that the NFHS put out regarding a deflected ball by the defense.

The exception to the rule 9-9-1 is not an exception to that rule, because it's a totally different play than the play being referenced.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No, it doesn't make sense. There is no rule that says it is a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. If that were the case, it would be a violation for the offense to simply throw the ball into the backcourt.

9-9-1 is a violation of backcourt rules. The exception is there to say that in the described situation there is not a violation.

Peace

In Essence, The Same ...
 

While the situation in the video doesn't exactly match the stupid interpretation, the video can be considered a violation by a broader view of that stupid interpretation (before the recent exception).

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)

If one assumes that a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch (as stupidly interpreted by the NFHS over the past several years, and reinforced as recently as year ago, while being questioned by many officials, most of whom would not call it a real game), then the video fits the definition of a backcourt violation.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

1) The offensive team has team control the entire video.

2) When the defensive player, who was in the frontcourt, deflected the ball the ball achieved frontcourt status.

3) The ball didn't achieve backcourt status until it touched the offensive player who was in the backcourt, so the offensive player was the last to touch the ball that had frontcourt status (it wasn't the defensive player who was the last to touch the ball that had frontcourt status).

4) Simultaneously, the offensive player was the first to touch the ball after it achieved backcourt status.

Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm only trying give a stupid rationale for the stupid interpretation.

I one agrees with stupid interpretation that the NFHS has used for several years (until the recent exception) that a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch (as many of us complained was a stupid interpretation), then both the stupid interpretation and the video, while not exactly the same, are backcourt violations for the same reason, i.e., the stupid interpretation, a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch.

In both the stupid interpretation and the video the ball did achieve frontcourt status and was in team control by the offensive team the entire time. It really doesn't matter that the ball was being passed between teammates in the stupid interpretation and was not being passed between teammates in the video, both situations are, in essence, the same in regard to the stupid interpretation of a backcourt violation, because the NFHS believed, up until recently, that a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch.

Bottom line. Most of us wouldn't call either the stupid interpretation, or the video, a backcourt violation in a real game. Now, thanks to the new NFHS exception, we can confidently answer the same way on a written exam.

Goodbye stupid interpretation. So long. Farewell. Arrivederci. Sayonara baby.

Except there is no frontcourt or backcourt status on a throw-in.

9-9-1 reads: 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.

An exception to 9-9-1 would read: 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.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

Now I'm getting confused. This (below) is what we definitely have from the NFHS. Where did the Raymond's exception (above) come from (in a thread regarding high school rules)?

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.

It is specifically this exception (above) that allows the NFHS to now conclude that both the stupid interpretation, and the video, are now both legal plays.

The exception makes no reference to the offense being the last touch the ball in the front court, so how is it an exception to the rule?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It is what he would have written if he were writing the rules and intended to make it more or less like the college rule. And it would have been clear....Raymond for NHFS Editor!!!

Forever And Ever ...
 

(In both the stupid interpretation, and the video, the offense was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, according to the old, now defunct, stupid interpretation, but not according to me, or many other officials, I'm only the messenger)

It's actually an exception to an odd interpretation of the language in the original and still unchanged backcourt rule to now legally allow the situation described in both the stupid interpretation, and in the video posted earlier.

Due to the new exception language, the stupid interpretation (below) is no longer valid, and is now incorrect, hopefully forever.

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)

The Lady Or The Tiger ???
 

For the good of the cause, here's the actual language of the two backcourt proposals that made their way all the way up the ladder to the NFHS rules committee and to come up for a vote.

Proposal B got the vote, and made its way into the rulebook. Proposal A did not (at this time).

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.

Maybe the NFHS was afraid that the tiger was behind Proposal A.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.y...=0&w=225&h=170

I’m scared to jump in on this, hell I was just trying to get ready for camp next week but are we overthinking this? See this comment:

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.Theresia Wynns, NFHS director of sports and officials, said the committee approved the exception to ensure that a team is not unfairly disadvantaged on a deflected pass.

When I first read this, I took away that a player hanging out in the backcourt can always recover a deflected ball. If I’m in the front court, pass the ball, have it deflect off me into the back court, last to touch, I can’t be first to touch as it is today. My teammate who never left the backcourt could recover.

Again, I’m no expert but it seems like we are over complicating it.

Did the defense really deflect it to the backcourt if you were the last to touch it?