The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 08:16am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,557
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 08:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 10:18am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01 View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 10:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 10:53am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01 View Post
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 04:14pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
Words Matter ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... 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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 04:17pm.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 12:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01 View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 03:51pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
Always Listen To bob ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
... 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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 11:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01 View Post
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?
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 03:53pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
Sayonara Baby ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 04:06pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
Royally Screwed Up ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 04:18pm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 04:17pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
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.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 04:30pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
Patience Is A Virtue ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
... 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.

__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 07:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
I'm not sure if I'm in the majority, or in the minority,
It's pretty likely that one of these is true.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 26, 2018, 04:32pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post

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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference exception CecilOne Softball 1 Mon May 28, 2012 04:38pm
Exception to 3-3-1-a? sj Basketball 12 Mon Jan 31, 2011 03:15pm
Number Exception PocketSidewalk Football 8 Fri Aug 06, 2010 09:15pm
8-2-D and Exception rwest Softball 1 Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:35am
Rule 4-2-2 exception. Mike Simonds Football 3 Mon Sep 23, 2002 09:58pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1