Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[Freddy]

I've been searching for video of an example of an instance that, by this recently released NFHS "rule change", is no longer to be considered a backcourt violation. Does this illustrate an instance that applies?

"New" 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[Nevadaref]

Yes. That is exactly what the newly crafted exception was written to permit. As opposed to the silly interp which stated that such a play was a violation.

[BillyMac]

Nice video Freddy.

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 video lacks the passing between teammates A1 and A2 in the frontcourt, but still meets the stupid interpretation’s 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.

The new exception would definitely apply here, keeping in mind that very few of us would have called this a violation in a real game situation before the new exception.

[JRutledge]

Exception how? This was not a first touch, last touch situation at all.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Exception how? This was not a first touch, last touch situation at all.

Peace

Right. But it was the FED interp from 8 (or so) years ago and reinforced last year or the year prior. The interp everyone here disagreed with.

Has the NFHS released clarification on the idea that they are adopting the NBA/NCAA-M backcourt rule where a defensive touch negates last to touch/first to touch?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Right. But it was the FED interp from 8 (or so) years ago and reinforced last year or the year prior. The interp everyone here disagreed with.

Yeah but this video was not exactly the play that was in the interp. I have never seen this play as even the issue that was being debated. This was not a throw-in and certainly as not a last touch, first touch situation for the team in control of the ball.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Has the NFHS released clarification on the idea that they are adopting the NBA/NCAA-M backcourt rule where a defensive touch negates last to touch/first to touch?

Not officially. Only anecdotal evidence they are going to the NCAA ruling at this time. I doubt we will know for sure until either late July or August.

Peace

[Freddy]

Just noticed that, if the new EXCEPTION is added to 9-9, they're also going to need to change 9.9.1C, which says:

A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's bakcourt where it touches the floor. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In . . . (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt...

The assumption easily drawn from those highlighted words is that it would be different than stated had the ball not touched the floor. Which might have been an intended defense of that defunct Interpretation, or perhaps the Interpretation was intended to be a defense of this casebook citation.

Either way...


Just wanted to see if I can start Billy Mac back up on it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yeah but this video was not exactly the play that was in the interp. I have never seen this play as even the issue that was being debated. This was not a throw-in and certainly as not a last touch, first touch situation for the team in control of the ball.

Peace

Not exactly, but essentially the same in principle. By that interpretation, the play in the video would have been a violation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not exactly, but essentially the same in principle. By that interpretation, the play in the video would have been a violation.

That sounds like a big stretch. But if that is what people are guessing, then we will confirm this soon either way I hope. But again the exception is to a last touch, first touch situation. The offensive player never was in the FC or touched the ball while in the FC.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That sounds like a big stretch. But if that is what people are guessing, then we will confirm this soon either way I hope. But again the exception is to a last touch, first touch situation. The offensive player never was in the FC or touched the ball while in the FC.

Peace

That is the entire point of why so many think the interpretation was bad.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not exactly, but essentially the same in principle. By that interpretation, the play in the video would have been a violation.

Thanx CR, that was my point. I'm still looking out for a video clip that perfectly parallels the defunct Interpretation, but try as I may I can't come up with one. For training purposes, however, this clip might have some application. If anyone comes across one, please share it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is the entire point of why so many think the interpretation was bad.

I did not say the interpretation was good. It was downright silly and very shortsighted. I do not think this one interpretation was actually the reason for the new change because they could have accomplished that by just following the rule and logic of that rule. We will find out in the end soon (I hope) but I think we conflate the issue by showing situations that do not apply to the actual wording of the new exception. And this video IMO does nothing to clarify anything of either the last year interpretation or this year's rule change. The player was never in the FC that made the pass before it was deflected. The exception would not apply to this player IMO.

Peace

[hoopsaddict01]

The ball gained frontcourt status when touched by the defender, who is in the frontcourt. The touch/deflection does not change team control. When the offensive player jumps and catches the ball, the ball still has frontcourt status as it had not touched the backcourt. Therefore, by the prior rules the offensive player is last to touch the ball with frontcourt status and while landing the is the first to touch the ball with backcourt status.

It would have been a violation, under prior rules, even if the offensive player did not jump. Under prior rules, the offensive player would have had to let the ball contact the floor in the backcourt before touching in under to avoid the violation.