Example of 9-9-1 EXCEPTION?

[Freddy]

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?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[JRutledge]

Exception how? This was not a first touch, last touch situation at all.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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

[hoopsaddict01]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01

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.

[hoopsaddict01]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict01

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

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.

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

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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, 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

[BillyMac]

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.

[hoopsaddict01]

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