|
|||
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) |
|
|||
Bet My House ??? I'd Be Crazy ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"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 04:42pm. |
|
|||
Contradicts ???
Quote:
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.
__________________
"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 06:52pm. |
|
|||
Casebook ...
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.
__________________
"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:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Close Minded ???
Quote:
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.
__________________
"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; Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 06:28am. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) Last edited by JRutledge; Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 08:40am. |
|
|||
Words Really Do Matter ...
Wrong. The NFHS exception states, "deflected from the frontcourt by the defense", not "deflected by the defense in the FC".
__________________
"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:
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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Nothing More, Nothing Less ...
Quote:
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. 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.
__________________
"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; Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 05:12pm. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |