Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[JRutledge]

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

[hoopsaddict01]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01

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

[hoopsaddict01]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01

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 end line). 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.

9-9-2 says:

While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from the backcourt to the frontcourt and return the to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch the backcourt.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... a boundary line is has nothing to do with a backcourt violation.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01

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.

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."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... show the rule that says "it's a violation to cause the ball to go to the back court."

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01

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.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Again, by rule, it was NOT a violation.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will say this, the NF has certainly already screwed this up on many levels ... I guess I do not get why people are still that confused.

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.

[Freddy]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... defending the minority viewpoint.

As strongly as I believe that this is simply a fix of a stupid interpretation, I'm not sure if I'm in the majority, or in the minority, and I'm still not 100% sure that I'm correct, and would only be mildly surprised if I discover that I've been wrong the entire time. And it doesn't matter what we now believe, or who's in the majority, or who's in the minority, the only thing that really matters is what the NFHS intended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not sure if I'm in the majority, or in the minority,

It's pretty likely that one of these is true.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

This fits the rule based on the language. I see nothing that contradicts this play in the NF Rule.

Peace