Cannot see the clip.

Peace

Walt,
Please post a link that works or adjust settings to grant access. I'm interested in what the clip you're sending looks like.
Thanx

https://iaabo.org/BackCourt/index.html

Try this. If not, I will get a copy directly from the guy who filmed it.

That's works.

Now just waiting on 5-7 posts from Billy.

LOL!

This play was also given to the NFHS at their request. Crazy how a situation that had to be "scripted and filmed" has caused this much angst among officials and members of the rules committee. Our organization has HUDL and every HS game played in the state is available for review. The guy who filmed this went back through 3 years of game films and never once saw this play. He told me they had to create a video because there were still people at the NFHS who would not give up and insisted this is a backcourt violation without seeing a visual play to review. So one night at our summer camp, we filmed it.

Then they clearly are tone deaf. Do these people watch or consume any other level of basketball? Seriously, they did not think that this would create some other issues and this is the best they could come up with?

Peace

I have association archives going back eight years and couldn't find anything that would apply until that one camp clip I posted previously. Admittedly it's rare, and I don't think anyone would have called it by the Interpretation anyway.

I Heard It Through The Grapevine (Gladys Knight & the Pips, 1967) ... ...
 

Is her name Gladys Knight?

walt beat me to it. I just opened up my email from IAABO a few minutes ago. Now I'm waiting for someone to say, "But that's only IAABO, let's wait for the NFHS to come out with it's rulebook, casebook, simplified illustrated book, annual interpretations, mechanics manual, and for officials to get a few scrimmages and games under their black belts, and only then will we be certain that the NFHS hasn't completely switched over to the NCAA backcourt exception".

Completely? This interpretation or rule has absolutely nothing to do with the new NCAA back court exception.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Agree ...
 

I know that. I've known it for a long time. You know that. Lots of Forum members know that. Does every single Forum member know what we know?

It appears that a few camp clinicians, at least one female state commissioner, and at least one Forum member, may have jumped the gun.

Actually, I am not convinced you or anyone knew anything. If you were sure you would not have been trying to convince anyone here what you thought over and over and over again. That clearly did not show much knowledge of the situation. For one the exception is not very well written for a situation that they described and the play did not even seem to cover the situation they used in that IAABO video. What many of us were doing and all we could do is speculate what was the situation or what they meant? I know as in the past and in many sports that the NF has a tendency to write a rule and then have to change it a few times to get it right. That is why I referenced the "Horsecollar" rule in football. They wrote the rule one way and it took 3 years to get it right. I would not be surprised if this rule is rewritten next year or even modified this year because of the vagueness of this interpretation. "First touch, last touch" was never really addressed because this play is not really a "first touch, last touch" situation at all. I was speculating on what was the ultimate meaning and clearly, there were others that were thinking the same thing across the country. And many of those were actually likely in the room when the decision was being made.

Peace

Just The Facts Ma'am ...
 

I was sure, which is why I tried to convince other Forum members. Why would I try to convince someone if I had any doubt, which would be foolish.

Based on the original written proposal, submitted by Julian Tackett of Lexington, Kentucky, that was eventually accepted by the NFHS rules committee, and based on the early information that was released by the NFHS, there was no doubt in my mind what the NFHS had in mind, to fix the stupid interpretation. In order for the NFHS backcourt rule to match the NCAA backcourt rule, much would have to be added to the early released information. That was certainly possible, and, in fact, the NFHS may eventually change to the NCAA rule over the next few years, but nothing, not one phrase, not one word, not one definition, had to be added to the early released information for it to end up as it ended up, and as many on the Forum thought it would end up. We had all the information that we needed from the beginning. No need to speculate. No need to wait, with bated breath, for more information to be released.

Yes some well intentioned people jumped the gun. Maybe their interpretation was slanted by wanting the NCAA rule, maybe because they thought it was a better rule, and the fact that the NFHS rules committee looked at such a rule change (proposed by Andrew Gross of Madison, South Dakota), though not accepting it, fueled this fire.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.P...=0&w=179&h=163

This video was made for IAABO and the NFHS by a guy who is an IAABO National Interpreter and is a member of the NFHS rules committee. I spoke to him again last night and he said there are still people on the NFHS rules committee who believe this previous rule interpretation should stand:

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to 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 is basically the play addressed by the previous interpretation except instead of the ball bouncing it is deflected directly in the air by the defense and A2 is still in the backcourt.

He told me there was almost two hours of discussion about the wording of the "new interpretation" and what is written is what was begrudgingly agreed upon. He told me the NCAAM backcourt rule was discussed but the rules committee was not willing to go that far "yet" although he believes that is ultimately where the NFHS will end up. He said the only difference this year is the play in the video should no longer be ruled a backcourt violation. He also said in all the people he's discussed this with in IAABO and the NFHS, no one could ever remember seeing such a play or the play discussed in the previous interpretation, in reality, ruled a backcourt violation.

He also told me he has been tasked by Theresia Wynns with drafting a new case play for distribution at some point in the "near future."

Maybe this is the lesson. You do not change a rule for one interpretation that no one sees. This rule still reads like something else or the NCAA Rule. You would have to be aware of this situation to even go there in your mind. Most officials are not that technical. And the fact they had to create a video makes it worse. Because the reality is that many people will never see that video in any form. Unless the NF is going to start creating videos like the NCAA where everyone can review them, this is why they have this kind of confusion. Wow, they dropped the ball on this one big time and one more reason people dismiss their other actions with this kind of silliness.

Peace

Rut, I totally agree and that was part of the discussion last night as well. The fact that the NFHS will get so focused on play situations like this one is a what leads to a lot of the frustration. They asked someone to create a video of a play that none of the members on the committee and practically no official who would actually enforce the rule has ever seen! I also agree that unless an official is way deep in the rule book and prior interpretations and is hyper-aware of this as a potential play situation, they are not going to make a backcourt ruling on this play in real time. Just look at how much time our group has spent writing about it!