![]() |
|
|
|||
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) |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Words Matter ...
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. |
|
|||
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."
|
|
|||
Always Listen To bob ...
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) |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Sayonara Baby ...
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) |
|
|||
Royally Screwed Up ???
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Patience Is A Virtue ...
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) |
|
|||
Quote:
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) |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |