Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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?

(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)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)?

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!!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 ...

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.

[packersowner]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by packersowner

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

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.
...

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.