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

Right. But it was the FED interp from 8 (or so) years ago and reinforced last year or the year prior. The interp everyone here disagreed with.

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?

Yeah but this video was not exactly the play that was in the interp. I have never seen this play as even the issue that was being debated. This was not a throw-in and certainly as not a last touch, first touch situation for the team in control of the ball.

Peace

Not officially. Only anecdotal evidence they are going to the NCAA ruling at this time. I doubt we will know for sure until either late July or August.

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. :)

Not exactly, but essentially the same in principle. By that interpretation, the play in the video would have been a violation.

That sounds like a big stretch. But if that is what people are guessing, then we will confirm this soon either way I hope. But again the exception is to a last touch, first touch situation. The offensive player never was in the FC or touched the ball while in the FC.

Peace

That is the entire point of why so many think the interpretation was bad.

Thanx CR, that was my point. I'm still looking out for a video clip that perfectly parallels the defunct Interpretation, but try as I may I can't come up with one. For training purposes, however, this clip might have some application. If anyone comes across one, please share it.

I did not say the interpretation was good. It was downright silly and very shortsighted. I do not think this one interpretation was actually the reason for the new change because they could have accomplished that by just following the rule and logic of that rule. We will find out in the end soon (I hope) but I think we conflate the issue by showing situations that do not apply to the actual wording of the new exception. And this video IMO does nothing to clarify anything of either the last year interpretation or this year's rule change. The player was never in the FC that made the pass before it was deflected. The exception would not apply to this player IMO.

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.

NO! NO! NO!

You have to change the rule's words to get to that conclusion. There is no part of the rule that refers to an offensive player in the backcourt touching a ball that, until that touch, had frontcourt status.

The offensive player was NOT the last to touch the ball with frontcourt status BEFORE it returned to the backcourt. "Before" is a very key word that you're skipping and the author of the interpretation also skipped. When the offense touches the ball, it gains backcourt status. But, who was the last to touch it BEFORE the touch that gave the ball backcourt status....the defender. Thus, no violation.

That is the rule and has been for decades. The interpretation, and your explanation above are just fundamentally wrong.

Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?
 

The interpretation makes sense, regardless of its popularity.

If a player is standing out of bounds and touched a ball that was last touched inbounds by an opponent, the opponent does not put the ball out of bounds. Instead the player who is out of bounds puts the ball out of bounds.

Yes, this video shows a play that matches the verbage that the NFHS put out regarding a deflected ball by the defense.

The exception to the rule 9-9-1 is not an exception to that rule, because it's a totally different play than the play being referenced.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No, it doesn't make sense. There is no rule that says it is a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. If that were the case, it would be a violation for the offense to simply throw the ball into the backcourt.

9-9-1 is a violation of backcourt rules. The exception is there to say that in the described situation there is not a violation.

Peace

In Essence, The Same ...
 

While the situation in the video doesn't exactly match the stupid interpretation, the video can be considered a violation by a broader view of that stupid interpretation (before the recent exception).

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)

If one assumes that a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch (as stupidly interpreted by the NFHS over the past several years, and reinforced as recently as year ago, while being questioned by many officials, most of whom would not call it a real game), then the video fits the 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.

1) The offensive team has team control the entire video.

2) When the defensive player, who was in the frontcourt, deflected the ball the ball achieved frontcourt status.

3) The ball didn't achieve backcourt status until it touched the offensive player who was in the backcourt, so the offensive player was the last to touch the ball that had frontcourt status (it wasn't the defensive player who was the last to touch the ball that had frontcourt status).

4) Simultaneously, the offensive player was the first to touch the ball after it achieved backcourt status.

Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm only trying give a stupid rationale for the stupid interpretation.

I one agrees with stupid interpretation that the NFHS has used for several years (until the recent exception) that a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch (as many of us complained was a stupid interpretation), then both the stupid interpretation and the video, while not exactly the same, are backcourt violations for the same reason, i.e., the stupid interpretation, a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch.

In both the stupid interpretation and the video the ball did achieve frontcourt status and was in team control by the offensive team the entire time. It really doesn't matter that the ball was being passed between teammates in the stupid interpretation and was not being passed between teammates in the video, both situations are, in essence, the same in regard to the stupid interpretation of a backcourt violation, because the NFHS believed, up until recently, that a single player can simultaneously be both the last to touch and the first to touch.

Bottom line. Most of us wouldn't call either the stupid interpretation, or the video, a backcourt violation in a real game. Now, thanks to the new NFHS exception, we can confidently answer the same way on a written exam.

Goodbye stupid interpretation. So long. Farewell. Arrivederci. Sayonara baby.

Except there is no frontcourt or backcourt status on a throw-in.

9-9-1 reads: 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.

An exception to 9-9-1 would read: 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 the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

Now I'm getting confused. This (below) is what we definitely have from the NFHS. Where did the Raymond's exception (above) come from (in a thread regarding high school rules)?

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.

It is specifically this exception (above) that allows the NFHS to now conclude that both the stupid interpretation, and the video, are now both legal plays.

The exception makes no reference to the offense being the last touch the ball in the front court, so how is it an exception to the rule?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It is what he would have written if he were writing the rules and intended to make it more or less like the college rule. And it would have been clear....Raymond for NHFS Editor!!!

Forever And Ever ...
 

(In both the stupid interpretation, and the video, the offense was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, according to the old, now defunct, stupid interpretation, but not according to me, or many other officials, I'm only the messenger)

It's actually an exception to an odd interpretation of the language in the original and still unchanged backcourt rule to now legally allow the situation described in both the stupid interpretation, and in the video posted earlier.

Due to the new exception language, the stupid interpretation (below) is no longer valid, and is now incorrect, hopefully forever.

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 Lady Or The Tiger ???
 

For the good of the cause, here's the actual language of the two backcourt proposals that made their way all the way up the ladder to the NFHS rules committee and to come up for a vote.

Proposal B got the vote, and made its way into the rulebook. Proposal A did not (at this time).

Proposal A: 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.

Proposal B: 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.

Maybe the NFHS was afraid that the tiger was behind Proposal A.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.y...=0&w=225&h=170

I’m scared to jump in on this, hell I was just trying to get ready for camp next week but are we overthinking this? See this comment:

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.

When I first read this, I took away that a player hanging out in the backcourt can always recover a deflected ball. If I’m in the front court, pass the ball, have it deflect off me into the back court, last to touch, I can’t be first to touch as it is today. My teammate who never left the backcourt could recover.

Again, I’m no expert but it seems like we are over complicating it.

Did the defense really deflect it to the backcourt if you were the last to touch it?

Pinball Wizard ...
 

Certainly important to know with the NFHS backcourt rule, both the past rule, and proposed exception (in my opinion, see below).

With my limited knowledge of NCAA rules, this (Camron Rust's question above) wouldn't matter if the NFHS fully changed to the NCAA rule. The ball could "pin ball" around in the frontcourt after a defensive deflection, touching multiple offensive and defensive players, while still in team control of the offensive team, and end up being legally touched by anybody in the backcourt.

Based on the language of the recent NFHS press release regarding the backcourt rule change, and with definite knowledge that the NFHS didn't vote to accept a proposal that the NFHS fully change to the NCAA rule (which made it's way up the ladder for a vote and was defeated), one can only assume, based on the facts that we've been presented to this point, that the new NFHS backcourt rule exception's sole purpose is to simply get rid of the stupid interpretation, no more, no less.

Of course, the NFHS has a history of weird interpretations with little support in the actual rulebook language, so this debate won't truly be over until it's over. Maybe the NFHS rules committee didn't know what they voted for, or against, until they finished voting (à la Congress), and left the table not realizing a mistake was made.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=300&h=300

Based on what has been officially released by the NFHS so far, this is my take away also.

The "last-to-touch" exception has only been hearsay from folks who heard something from somebody at camp.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Sayonara Baby ...
 

Agree. It was not a violation by rule, it was a violation by interpretation, and now that stupid interpretation has been fixed.

Royally Screwed Up ???
 

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.

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.

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.

Again I do not care what was proposed and which proposal was accepted, I know what was written at this point. That is all that matters to me right now. And it is awfully ironic if the NF did not intend to use the NCAA rule but the NCAA rule was changed to this basic language that mirrors the recent change from the NCAA. If they wanted to change something for one interpretation, which again they could do by actually putting out an interpretation. That is why I referenced the football rule addressing Horsecollar rule that also was an NCAA rule, but did not use their wording and caused a disaster for a couple of years. Team Control rule is probably the best example because it seemed like they had no idea what they wanted to have with the wording.

Peace

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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8...=0&w=191&h=163

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ONCKDv970QQ" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

Peace

Bet My House ??? I'd Be Crazy ...
 

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.

Contradicts ???
 

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.

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.

It's pretty likely that one of these is true.

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

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

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I0sjNk9DBd4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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 ???
 

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.


https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.P...=0&w=195&h=177

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

Words Really Do Matter ...
 

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

Nothing More, Nothing Less ...
 

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.

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.

Because Of The Stupid Interpretation ...
 

(Did you mean "into" the backcourt rather than "in the backcourt?)

Because of this (below), where the defense deflects the ball into the backcourt but the offense is still whistled for the backcourt violation.

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)

Slightly Close ...
 

"Deflected by the defense in the FC" sounds slightly close to the NCAA backcourt rule. In other words, once the defense deflects the ball in the frontcourt (I like to describe it as the ball pin balling around), anybody can touch the ball in the backcourt, even if the ball stays in offensive team control the entire time. That, I believe, is the NCAA backcourt rule. That's why I commented.

I do not answer to forum members. And it is not forum members that are going to give the official word on this.

Not complicated at all because this is pure speculation. I also never said the rules were exactly the same. But we have been here before with other NF rules changes. The NF took on the Team Control Rule in the actual practice of what the NCAA does while not using the exact language from the NCAA. So we have seen this story before. And the NF spent years telling everyone their actual intent in the Team Control Rules during a throw-in which there is no space in the actual NCAA application of the similar rules. Actually, your references to proposals make this complicated because it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Peace

Complicated ???
 

Then stop answering my posts. One thing I know for sure, if I'm wrong, and the NFHS backcourt rule turns out to be the same as the NCAA backcourt rule, I will "answer" to my Forum member colleagues, and say that I was wrong.

Make up your mind. Sometimes you say it's complicated. Sometimes you say it isn't complicated. It's either one, or the other. I'm sticking with simple.

The agenda of the NFHS rules committee and said proposals are not irrelevant. Some eventually became rule changes, some didn't. We are discussing rule changes made by the NFHS rules committee, aren't we? In deciding the true meaning of this rule change, every bit of factual evidence we can get from the NFHS rules committee is relevant, and can help us to get closer to solving this issue (that will eventually be solved for us no matter what we decide here on the Forum).

IT IS the NCAA rule, and it is explicitly spelled out in the NCAA rule book. And NOTHING the NFHS has published this off-season mentions anything about an offensive player touching the ball last. It doesn't matter what folks heard at different camps. That's all hearsay and speculation. But you keep on getting caught up in it. So I'm trying to figure out why you keep quoting and debating me since I've say about 100 times now that the only thing the NFHS has done is publish an "exception" that makes it legal for the offense to catch/touch a ball in the air that was deflected by the defense in the FC.

You spend so much time parsing every word that you don't pay attention and comprehend what is being said.

Right. It interrupts the flow of BM talking to himself.

Just As The NFHS Rules Committee Intended ...
 

Agree 100%. I apologize for being so picky. The reason why I'm paying close attention to the language posted is because there are closed minded Forum members who don't agree with us, who only skim through, or not even read, everything posted, who aren't open to factual evidence presented, who might come across a slightly incorrect word that may support their side of the issue, and who will cherry pick that slightly incorrect word to support their cause.

It's actually quite simple. It's not complicated at all. All we need is the NFHS new rule language. No more, no less. Everything that we need is already there. No reason to speculate. No reason to paraphrase. No reason to change any words. No reason to add any additional language to the existing language.

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.

That's all we need because this (above) gets rid of this (below).

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)

Just as the NFHS rules committee intended.

A Path To Knowledge ...
 

When challenged about something that I believe in, I will continue to defend my opinion until I am convinced that I'm wrong, at which time I will say that I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with having strong convictions, and to defend one's opinions, as long as one is willing to politely respond to other's comments, and opinions.

As a chemist, and a former science teacher, I value knowledge, facts, logic, and reason. And, as all of you already know, I enjoy a lively debate. This is just basketball, a game, so it's fun to make points and counterpoints with those who may have different opinions than me, even if it means that I eventually discover that I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong because I usually learn something new along the way, call it a path to knowledge if you wish.

I have actually have made a few comments and did not respond to your posts in any way. You just keep commenting on every issue you think you need to and then keep parsing words on things we still have not heard. I think this is the NCAA Rule is just my opinion right now, which could be totally wrong If you think it is not, then so be it. But stop trying to make this about me when you are the one struggling with the issue here. I am cool with waiting for the end result. I know this summer we have been calling it based on the NCAA Rule. No one has said a word. I guess we will find out in the end if we are right. It really is not that deep.

Peace

Confident ...
 

I'm not struggling at all. I am confident in my assessment of the new rule language, and I can support my view with 100% factual evidence.

Agree. See my quote above.

Response ???
 

Alright. So what do you call it when you quote me in your posts and then make a comment about my quote? Is that not a response? Do you actually read your own posts before you click submit reply? Is your definition of "response" that much different than how the rest of us would define it?

It is really time to close this topic. Billy is clearly all in his feelings. He needs a girlfriend or something.

Peace

Oh, The Humanity ...
 

What I need is a few casebook plays from the NFHS. After that I can either feel good about my abilities of reasoning and logic; or I can go down in flames, and if that's the case, it won't be pretty, but it will be spectacular.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.F...=0&w=352&h=180

This is why debates have time limits and why the internet invented "A2D."

Agreed. Until then, it's just pointless speculation on anyone's part.

The Google ...
 

Al Gore's internet invented the shorthand notation for the phrase "Agree to disagree"? Did you gather that fact from the internet?

Be careful here. Remember what President Abraham Lincoln, said, Nostradamus-like, "Don't believe everything that you read on the internet". The quote is true because I read it on the Google, where everything is 101% factual.