Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Why would there need to be an exception if the defense deflected the ball in the backcourt?

(Did you mean "into" the backcourt rather than "in the backcourt?)

Because of this (below), where the defense deflects the ball into the backcourt but the offense is still whistled for the backcourt violation.

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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

NFHS released an "exception" to rule 9-9-1 that states an offensive player may catch/touch an airborne ball in the BC without violating if it is deflected by the defense in the FC.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wrong. The NFHS exception states, "deflected from the frontcourt by the defense", not "deflected by the defense in the FC".

"Deflected by the defense in the FC" sounds slightly close to the NCAA backcourt rule. In other words, once the defense deflects the ball in the frontcourt (I like to describe it as the ball pin balling around), anybody can touch the ball in the backcourt, even if the ball stays in offensive team control the entire time. That, I believe, is the NCAA backcourt rule. That's why I commented.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's a clear as a bell to me, and to a few other Forum members, who view this only as an interpretation clarification. It's simple, easy to understand, and matches up with what most of us have viewed as a flawed interpretation that few of us would ever actually call in a real game.

I do not answer to forum members. And it is not forum members that are going to give the official word on this.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's only complicated to those who insist that the NFHS has changed fully to the NCAA rule, and are trying to fit the NFHS rule language to the NCAA rule language, which is a difficult, complicated task because these two rules are not the same. It's like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Not an easy task. A hammer would help, but that would make it more complicated.

Not complicated at all because this is pure speculation. I also never said the rules were exactly the same. But we have been here before with other NF rules changes. The NF took on the Team Control Rule in the actual practice of what the NCAA does while not using the exact language from the NCAA. So we have seen this story before. And the NF spent years telling everyone their actual intent in the Team Control Rules during a throw-in which there is no space in the actual NCAA application of the similar rules. Actually, your references to proposals make this complicated because it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not answer to forum members ... Not complicated at all because this is pure speculation ... your references to proposals ... totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Then stop answering my posts. One thing I know for sure, if I'm wrong, and the NFHS backcourt rule turns out to be the same as the NCAA backcourt rule, I will "answer" to my Forum member colleagues, and say that I was wrong.

Make up your mind. Sometimes you say it's complicated. Sometimes you say it isn't complicated. It's either one, or the other. I'm sticking with simple.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not complicated at all

Originally Posted by JRutledge

something simple into a very complicated thing.

The agenda of the NFHS rules committee and said proposals are not irrelevant. Some eventually became rule changes, some didn't. We are discussing rule changes made by the NFHS rules committee, aren't we? In deciding the true meaning of this rule change, every bit of factual evidence we can get from the NFHS rules committee is relevant, and can help us to get closer to solving this issue (that will eventually be solved for us no matter what we decide here on the Forum).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Deflected by the defense in the FC" sounds slightly close to the NCAA backcourt rule. In other words, once the defense deflects the ball in the frontcourt (I like to describe it as the ball pin balling around), anybody can touch the ball in the backcourt, even if the ball stays in offensive team control the entire time. That, I believe, is the NCAA backcourt rule. That's why I commented.

IT IS the NCAA rule, and it is explicitly spelled out in the NCAA rule book. And NOTHING the NFHS has published this off-season mentions anything about an offensive player touching the ball last. It doesn't matter what folks heard at different camps. That's all hearsay and speculation. But you keep on getting caught up in it. So I'm trying to figure out why you keep quoting and debating me since I've say about 100 times now that the only thing the NFHS has done is publish an "exception" that makes it legal for the offense to catch/touch a ball in the air that was deflected by the defense in the FC.

You spend so much time parsing every word that you don't pay attention and comprehend what is being said.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Then stop answering my posts.

Right. It interrupts the flow of BM talking to himself.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And NOTHING the NFHS has published this off-season mentions anything about an offensive player touching the ball last. So I'm trying to figure out why you keep quoting and debating me since I've say about 100 times now that the only thing the NFHS has done is publish an "exception" that makes it legal for the offense to catch/touch a ball in the air that was deflected by the defense in the FC.

Agree 100%. I apologize for being so picky. The reason why I'm paying close attention to the language posted is because there are closed minded Forum members who don't agree with us, who only skim through, or not even read, everything posted, who aren't open to factual evidence presented, who might come across a slightly incorrect word that may support their side of the issue, and who will cherry pick that slightly incorrect word to support their cause.

It's actually quite simple. It's not complicated at all. All we need is the NFHS new rule language. No more, no less. Everything that we need is already there. No reason to speculate. No reason to paraphrase. No reason to change any words. No reason to add any additional language to the existing language.

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.

That's all we need because this (above) gets rid of this (below).

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)

Just as the NFHS rules committee intended.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It interrupts the flow of BM talking to himself.

When challenged about something that I believe in, I will continue to defend my opinion until I am convinced that I'm wrong, at which time I will say that I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with having strong convictions, and to defend one's opinions, as long as one is willing to politely respond to other's comments, and opinions.

As a chemist, and a former science teacher, I value knowledge, facts, logic, and reason. And, as all of you already know, I enjoy a lively debate. This is just basketball, a game, so it's fun to make points and counterpoints with those who may have different opinions than me, even if it means that I eventually discover that I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong because I usually learn something new along the way, call it a path to knowledge if you wish.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Then stop answering my posts.

I have actually have made a few comments and did not respond to your posts in any way. You just keep commenting on every issue you think you need to and then keep parsing words on things we still have not heard. I think this is the NCAA Rule is just my opinion right now, which could be totally wrong If you think it is not, then so be it. But stop trying to make this about me when you are the one struggling with the issue here. I am cool with waiting for the end result. I know this summer we have been calling it based on the NCAA Rule. No one has said a word. I guess we will find out in the end if we are right. It really is not that deep.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you are the one struggling with the issue here.

I'm not struggling at all. I am confident in my assessment of the new rule language, and I can support my view with 100% factual evidence.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's actually quite simple. It's not complicated at all. All we need is the NFHS new rule language. No more, no less. Everything that we need is already there. No reason to speculate. No reason to paraphrase. No reason to change any words. No reason to add any additional language to the existing language.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It really is not that deep.

Agree. See my quote above.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

.. did not respond to your posts in any way.

Alright. So what do you call it when you quote me in your posts and then make a comment about my quote? Is that not a response? Do you actually read your own posts before you click submit reply? Is your definition of "response" that much different than how the rest of us would define it?

[JRutledge]

It is really time to close this topic. Billy is clearly all in his feelings. He needs a girlfriend or something.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He needs a girlfriend or something.

What I need is a few casebook plays from the NFHS. After that I can either feel good about my abilities of reasoning and logic; or I can go down in flames, and if that's the case, it won't be pretty, but it will be spectacular.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

When challenged about something that I believe in, I will continue to defend my opinion

This is why debates have time limits and why the internet invented "A2D."

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What I need is a few casebook plays from the NFHS.

Agreed. Until then, it's just pointless speculation on anyone's part.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

This is why the internet invented "A2D."

Al Gore's internet invented the shorthand notation for the phrase "Agree to disagree"? Did you gather that fact from the internet?

Be careful here. Remember what President Abraham Lincoln, said, Nostradamus-like, "Don't believe everything that you read on the internet". The quote is true because I read it on the Google, where everything is 101% factual.