Pinball Wizard ...
 

Certainly important to know with the NFHS backcourt rule, both the past rule, and proposed exception (in my opinion, see below).

With my limited knowledge of NCAA rules, this (Camron Rust's question above) wouldn't matter if the NFHS fully changed to the NCAA rule. The ball could "pin ball" around in the frontcourt after a defensive deflection, touching multiple offensive and defensive players, while still in team control of the offensive team, and end up being legally touched by anybody in the backcourt.

Based on the language of the recent NFHS press release regarding the backcourt rule change, and with definite knowledge that the NFHS didn't vote to accept a proposal that the NFHS fully change to the NCAA rule (which made it's way up the ladder for a vote and was defeated), one can only assume, based on the facts that we've been presented to this point, that the new NFHS backcourt rule exception's sole purpose is to simply get rid of the stupid interpretation, no more, no less.

Of course, the NFHS has a history of weird interpretations with little support in the actual rulebook language, so this debate won't truly be over until it's over. Maybe the NFHS rules committee didn't know what they voted for, or against, until they finished voting (à la Congress), and left the table not realizing a mistake was made.

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

Based on what has been officially released by the NFHS so far, this is my take away also.

The "last-to-touch" exception has only been hearsay from folks who heard something from somebody at camp.

I will say this, the NF has certainly already screwed this up on many levels. They clearly have tried to be cute with their language.

I guess I do not get why people are still that confused. I attended a HS camp on Saturday and had someone suggest, "We have called it like this already." We did is what I am thinking. What did we call before that this rule addressed?

But again the rule change already is just an exception to what would be a violation. And it uses basically the same (but not exactly the same) language as the NCAA rule change. But in the NF infinite wisdom they just could not take on the exact language, but almost identical language. I do not see how that addresses and interpretation at all when they could change an interpretation to match whatever they like since they pulled that one out of their ass before.

The video posted in this situation is more in line with 9-9-2 than 9-9-1, but still would not be considered a violation based on the rule.

Peace

Except by rule, the play in the video is/was a backcourt violation regardless of the fact that many chose to ignore the rule and not call it.

Which is why the rule change was made to match what was being called — albeit incorrectly.

How is that a violation? The offensive player did not cause the ball to go to the backcourt. It was touched by a defender and put the ball in the backcourt.

Peace

The ball never contacts the backcourt; therefore, it still has frontcourt status and the defense does not cause the ball to go into the backcourt the offense does.

Just the same as if you change the play to where the division line is a boundary line (either sideline or endline). In that situation the ball would still be inbounds and when the offense touches the ball while standing out of bounds, the ball now has out-of-bounds status and the ensuing throw-in would be awarded to the defense.

The rule does not say it has to contact the backcourt. It says it can touch a player in the frontcourt, which it did in the video.

And a boundary line is has nothing to do with a backcourt violation. Two very different situations for very different reasons.

Here is what the rule actually says.

A player touched the ball in the FC so that part does not apply to a violation this rule describes. This was a pass that was touched by a FC player (it did not distinguish offensive or defensive player) and then brought the ball to the BC.

Peace

Again, by rule, it was NOT a violation. You have to change the words of the rule to get it to be a violation.

Team A was not the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returned to the backcourt (when Team A caught the deflection). Before is never the same time as the catch, it was the touch before that...the touch by B.



Were you the author of the bogus interpretation?

I think we agree with that. So, show the rule that says "it's a violation to cause the ball to go to the back court."

Always Listen To bob ...
 

You know that we can't because it's not a rule, otherwise we wouldn't have to wait until the ball touches an offensive player before we sound the whistle for a backcourt violation. The ball could possibly bounce five or six times in the backcourt and go out of bounds on the backcourt endline before we sound the whistle for an out of bounds violation, with nary a backcourt call.

Sayonara Baby ...
 

Agree. It was not a violation by rule, it was a violation by interpretation, and now that stupid interpretation has been fixed.

Royally Screwed Up ???
 

If one believes that the NFHS has fully changed to the NCAA backcourt rule, then it certainly has royally screwed up this rule change. It certainly has confused those who believe that it intended to make the complete change to the NCAA rule, including some trainers at summer camps.

On the other hand, if one believes, as I now do, that the NFHS has simply permanently fixed a several year old interpretation, that was reinforced as recently as a year ago; an interpretation that most officials never agreed with; and an interpretation that most of us would never call in a real game, then the NFHS has done nothing wrong, it just made a simple fix with a simple exception.

Words Matter ...
 

I think I know your intent here (an airborne ball passing over a division line boundary), but it's still a poor choice of words (nothing is a very strong word). Try calling a backcourt violation on a court with no division line boundary. Try ignoring a backcourt violation when an offensive player in team control in his frontcourt is dribbling the ball and steps on the division line boundary.

Not My Intent
 

I sure didn't mean this thread to open up the whole topic once again, especially after we all kinda agreed just to put it to rest until the rules book comes out. However, I gained from reading some of the posts here, especially the one by the brother defending the minority viewpoint.

Just to restate the point of the thread, if anyone runs across a video clip of what the apparent intent of the announced new 9-9-1 EXCEPTION would look like, please share it here. It's just a whole lot easier teaching it in preseason meetings with the ability to say, "This is what the new rule means", and then play a video that perfectly illustrates it.

Again I do not care what was proposed and which proposal was accepted, I know what was written at this point. That is all that matters to me right now. And it is awfully ironic if the NF did not intend to use the NCAA rule but the NCAA rule was changed to this basic language that mirrors the recent change from the NCAA. If they wanted to change something for one interpretation, which again they could do by actually putting out an interpretation. That is why I referenced the football rule addressing Horsecollar rule that also was an NCAA rule, but did not use their wording and caused a disaster for a couple of years. Team Control rule is probably the best example because it seemed like they had no idea what they wanted to have with the wording.

Peace