Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?
I've been searching for video of an example of an instance that, by this recently released NFHS "rule change", is no longer to be considered a backcourt violation. Does this illustrate an instance that applies?
"New" 9-9-1 EXCEPTION? |
Yes. That is exactly what the newly crafted exception was written to permit. As opposed to the silly interp which stated that such a play was a violation.
|
Freddy's Not Dead ...
Nice video Freddy.
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) The video lacks the passing between teammates A1 and A2 in the frontcourt, but still meets the stupid interpretation’s definition of a backcourt violation. 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. The new exception would definitely apply here, keeping in mind that very few of us would have called this a violation in a real game situation before the new exception. |
Exception how? This was not a first touch, last touch situation at all.
Peace |
Quote:
|
Has the NFHS released clarification on the idea that they are adopting the NBA/NCAA-M backcourt rule where a defensive touch negates last to touch/first to touch?
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
Peace |
Just noticed that, if the new EXCEPTION is added to 9-9, they're also going to need to change 9.9.1C, which says:
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's bakcourt where it touches the floor. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In . . . (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt... The assumption easily drawn from those highlighted words is that it would be different than stated had the ball not touched the floor. Which might have been an intended defense of that defunct Interpretation, or perhaps the Interpretation was intended to be a defense of this casebook citation. Either way... Just wanted to see if I can start Billy Mac back up on it. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?
The ball gained frontcourt status when touched by the defender, who is in the frontcourt. The touch/deflection does not change team control. When the offensive player jumps and catches the ball, the ball still has frontcourt status as it had not touched the backcourt. Therefore, by the prior rules the offensive player is last to touch the ball with frontcourt status and while landing the is the first to touch the ball with backcourt status.
It would have been a violation, under prior rules, even if the offensive player did not jump. Under prior rules, the offensive player would have had to let the ball contact the floor in the backcourt before touching in under to avoid the violation. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42pm. |