Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[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.

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Team Control rule is probably the best example because it seemed like they had no idea what they wanted to have with the wording.

Good point. Which is the only thing keeping me from betting my house on my assessment of this rule change.

Everything released by the NFHS so far says "interpretation fix". Any other interpretation is just speculation, maybe shaded by a hope that many would like a complete change to the NCAA rule.

But as we all know, if anybody can screw up a rule change, the NFHS can, and they're real good at it. They're what you call experts.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "contradicts", but this (video) has been a high school backcourt violation for as long as I've been officiating, almost four decades, and may still be, even with the new exception.

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.

"Deflected from the frontcourt by the defense" is not the same as deflected in the frontcourt by the defense (as shown on the embedded video).

"From" means that the ball is going somewhere other than the frontcourt, maybe from the frontcourt into the backcourt, or maybe from the frontcourt to out of bounds. "From" is a poor word choice for the ball going from the frontcourt to the frontcourt (as shown in the embedded video).

This (below) is the language that the NFHS needs to include to make it a full switch to the NCAA rule:

"... may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt."

Right now the language isn't there. Maybe it will be in a few weeks, but it isn't there right now.

As of right now, this is what we've got: 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. And, of course, we know that the stupid interpretation is gone, hopefully for good.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... put it to rest until the rules book comes out.

The rulebook isn't going to help unless the rule language is very different from the language that's already been released by the NFHS.

The casebook will be the key, or an annual interpretation. Hopefully there will be some plays in the casebook.

[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 BillyMac

Good point. Which is the only thing keeping me from betting my house on my assessment of this rule change.

Everything released by the NFHS so far says "interpretation fix". Any other interpretation is just speculation, maybe shaded by a hope that many would like a complete change to the NCAA rule.

But as we all know, if anybody can screw up a rule change, the NFHS can, and they're real good at it. They're what you call experts.

It is not that deep. But what are you talking about that has been released? I have seen nothing released but the language of the rule. And there is anecdotal evidence that this is the NCAA rule that is basically being adopted. And I was more confused by a camp I attended Saturday as they did not suggest either, but said, "We have been calling this that way already." OK, what way?

Peace

[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.

I have added a new video asking a question about the new rule.



Peace

[Nevadaref]

Both plays shown in that video are still backcourt violations under NFHS rules.
I'm firmly on the side of those who believe that the NFHS has not adopted the NCAA rule and has NOT scrapped the last-to-touch, first-to-touch prohibition.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... what are you talking about that has been released? I have seen nothing released but the language of the rule.

A closed minded person may not see anything other than the rule language if they have already made up their mind and are not looking for any additional information, all of which has been posted on the Forum over the past few months.

Here's the rule language (the only information we have according to some):

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.

In addition, we have the following (everything in italics comes directly from the NFHS and is unedited (except as noted):

Here's the original NFHS press release (minus the actual rule language already posted above):

An exception to the backcourt violation … comprise the changes approved for the 2018-19 high school basketball season … 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.

Here's the rule rationale:

Rationale: To ensure that a team is not unfairly disadvantaged on a deflected pass.

Here's a Comment on the Rule:

An EXCEPTION added to the backcourt violation (9-9-1): To ensure that an offensive team is not unfairly penalized when the ball is deflected by the defense from the frontcourt to the backcourt. This exception allows the offense to recover the ball (that still has frontcourt status) in the backcourt without penalty. This also makes the play situation on the deflected pass consistent with other codes with very similar team control and backcourt rules.

Here's the original backcourt rule proposal that was accepted by the NFHS rules committee and made it's way into the rulebook:

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.

Here's the interpretation that the new rule exception makes null and void:

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)

In addition, here's the other backcourt rule proposal that was not accepted by the NFHS rules committee:

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.

[Raymond]

What's with all the typing? NFHS released an "exception" to rule 9-9-1 that states an offensive player may catch/touch an airborne ball in the BC without violating if it is deflected by the defense in the FC.

The NFHS has released absolutely nothing that states there will be an exception to the "last-to-touch/first-to-touch" portion of the BC rule.

It's that simple.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What's with all the typing? NFHS released an "exception" to rule 9-9-1 that states an offensive player may catch/touch an airborne ball in the BC without violating if it is deflected by the defense in the FC.

The NFHS has released absolutely nothing that states there will be an exception to the "last-to-touch/first-to-touch" portion of the BC rule.

It's that simple.

I see what you are saying, but the only first touch/last touch part of the BC rule is in 9-9-1. I would hope they were not spitting hairs that much that they expected a player to just be in the BC in order to be allowed to get the ball already. Most of these situations where would be a player in the FC that would go to the BC. That is why I believe at this time (and my opinion could clearly change with the right interpretations announced), that this is the NCAA rule with bad wording.

The NF really made something simple into a very complicated thing.

I also do not understand why Billy keeps referencing proposals. Why would anyone care what was proposed and not accepted? That is not how people learn new rules based on what was not accepted.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

NFHS released an "exception" to rule 9-9-1 that states an offensive player may catch/touch an airborne ball in the BC without violating if it is deflected by the defense in the FC.

Wrong. The NFHS exception states, "deflected from the frontcourt by the defense", not "deflected by the defense in the FC".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wrong. The NFHS exception states, "deflected from the frontcourt by the defense", not "deflected by the defense in the FC".

Why would there need to be an exception if the defense deflected the ball in the backcourt?

You need go back and re-read my posts and pay attention to the point I'm making.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NF really made something simple into a very complicated thing. I also do not understand why Billy keeps referencing proposals. Why would anyone care what was proposed and not accepted? That is not how people learn new rules based on what was not accepted.

It's a clear as a bell to me, and to a few other Forum members, who view this only as an interpretation clarification. It's simple, easy to understand, and matches up with what most of us have viewed as a flawed interpretation that few of us would ever actually call in a real game.

It's only complicated to those who insist that the NFHS has changed fully to the NCAA rule, and are trying to fit the NFHS rule language to the NCAA rule language, which is a difficult, complicated task because these two rules are not the same. It's like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Not an easy task. A hammer would help, but that would make it more complicated.

Looking at the actual language of the two backcourt proposals gives us some insight, for those who are not closed minded and want to actually work hard to gain some insight into what the newly released rule language really means.

A rule change was proposed that, in essence, changed the NFHS backcourt rule to the NCAA backcourt rule. That proposal was voted down because the NFHS didn't want to fully change to the NCAA backcourt rule. If they wanted to make the full change, they would have voted for it, but they didn't. Why not? Because they didn't want to make the full change.

Another rule change proposal simply made an exception to the existing NFHS backcourt rule so that a highly controversial interpretation could be overturned. This proposal was voted on, and accepted by the committee. Why did they accept this proposal? Because that's what they wanted, to make a controversial interpretation null, and void. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have seen nothing released but the language of the rule.

One can even disregard the portions of my post (above) that dealt with the two proposals. Go ahead, completely disregard those proposals. Totally ignore them (even though they may have some value). That still leaves the original NFHS press release, the rule rationale, the Comment on the Rule, and the interpretation in question. That certainly is a lot more than nothing other than the rule language. One simply has to work hard to seek the truth, open their eyes, gather all the factual evidence that is available, and open their minds to other's opinions.