The Official Forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   9-9-1 EXCEPTION in New '18,19 Rules Book (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/103927-9-9-1-exception-new-18-19-rules-book.html)

JRutledge Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt (Post 1023597)
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!
And they used language that happened to mirror parts of another rule change at the NCAA did for this coming year. That is why we had to speculate what the rule meant.

Peace

Freddy Wed Aug 08, 2018 02:38pm
Jumping the Gun
 
A "work-in-progress", an initial attempt at a resource to use for teaching and sharing this thing.
Posted here to soliticit proposed corrections and improvements and changes and enhancements and revisions and modifications and such. :)
**Draft** PowerPoint: New 9-9-1 EXCEPTION
Hope this thing doesn't go "180" on me when the Casebook and new Interpretations come out. :cool:
(correct link updated)

JRutledge Wed Aug 08, 2018 04:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1023602)
A "work-in-progress", an initial attempt at a resource to use for teaching and sharing this thing.
Posted here to soliticit proposed corrections and improvements and changes and enhancements and revisions and modifications and such. :)
**Draft** PowerPoint: New 9-9-1 EXCEPTION
Hope this thing doesn't go "180" on me when the Casebook and new Interpretations come out. :cool:
(correct link updated)
I think this is very good. It goes through the process of the rule. Good job.

Peace

BillyMac Wed Aug 08, 2018 05:48pm
Freddy's Not Dead ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1023602)
A "work-in-progress", an initial attempt at a resource to use for teaching.
Excellent educational tool.

Has the NFHS, or for that matter, the Forum, ever paid so much attention to one simple annual interpretation? The history of this stupid interpretation is amazing, and it's fix, with some well intentioned clinicians, and other officials, anticipating that the new NFHS rule was going to be the same as the NCAA rule (shame on the NFHS for making the press release so generic), was just as bad as the stupid interpretation. Could the NFHS have done a worse job?

I nominate Freddy for a seat at the table of next year's NFHS rules committee meeting. Any seconds?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.D...=0&w=453&h=182

BillyMac Wed Aug 08, 2018 06:00pm
Hold On, I'm Comin' (Sam & Dave, 1966) ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1023593)
... the NFHS may eventually change to the NCAA rule over the next few years ... Maybe (officials) 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) ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt (Post 1023595)
... 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.
Coming soon to a theater near you.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.7...=0&w=266&h=180

bob jenkins Thu Aug 09, 2018 07:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1023605)
I think this is very good. It goes through the process of the rule. Good job.

Peace
Agreed.

ANd, now that I'm back and can look at the "camp video" in the presentation (I assume it's the same one as posted elsewhere in this (or a similar) thread) -- The official in the play appears to keep his 10-secpond BC count. The ball reached the FC, so when it was returned to the BC, a new count should have been started.

TopicalTropical Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:53am
I'm still a wee bit confused so please correct me. After looking at the powerpoint-

1. - A1 in his frontcourt makes pass, defense knocks it back like in the video. A2 in backcourt catches the ball in air or on a bounce. Violation? No in both cases

2. Same as 1 but this time, B1 knocks ball off A1's leg. Ball then goes into backcourt. Violation once A2 touches

3. A1 in frontcourt with ball, A2 also in frontcourt. A1 makes pass, B2 deflects ball to backcourt. Can A2 go get the ball?

4. Say a press like situation, A1 has ball, A2 is in the backcourt, then frontcourt, then back again. A1 makes the deflected pass off B1, I assume it is not a violation here and A2 can get ball.

Freddy Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:35pm
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopicalTropical (Post 1023615)
I'm still a wee bit confused so please correct me. After looking at the powerpoint-

1. - A1 in his frontcourt makes pass, defense knocks it back like in the video. A2 in backcourt catches the ball in air or on a bounce. Violation? No in both cases. CORRECT, AFTER BOUNCING HAS ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL, AND "IN THE AIR" IS NOW ALLOWED BY THE NEW EXCEPTION TO 9-9-1.

2. Same as 1 but this time, B1 knocks ball off A1's leg. Ball then goes into backcourt. Violation once A2 touches. CORRECT. THAT'S A "LAST TO TOUCH...FIRST TO TOUCH" SITUATION. THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

3. A1 in frontcourt with ball, A2 also in frontcourt. A1 makes pass, B2 deflects ball to backcourt. Can A2 go get the ball? YES, THAT HASN'T CHANGED, AND THE EXCEPTION EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THAT IS LEGAL.

4. Say a press like situation, A1 has ball, A2 is in the backcourt, then frontcourt, then back again. A1 makes the deflected pass off B1, I assume it is not a violation here and A2 can get ball. YES. THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

TopicalTropical Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:44pm
So pretty much, we should be noting if the the ball hits A player last. b2 makes steal attempt, deflects ball. Main issue still remains if team A last to touch in frontcourt.

Freddy Thu Aug 09, 2018 01:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopicalTropical (Post 1023617)
So pretty much, we should be noting if the the ball hits A player last. b2 makes steal attempt, deflects ball. Main issue still remains if team A last to touch in frontcourt.
Yes. That's the place then for signal #14, Tipped Ball, to show that the offense can recover the ball in the backcourt without violating. Right?

Raymond Thu Aug 09, 2018 01:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopicalTropical (Post 1023615)
I'm still a wee bit confused so please correct me. After looking at the powerpoint-

1. - A1 in his frontcourt makes pass, defense knocks it back like in the video. A2 in backcourt catches the ball in air or on a bounce. Violation? No in both cases

...

3. A1 in frontcourt with ball, A2 also in frontcourt. A1 makes pass, B2 deflects ball to backcourt. Can A2 go get the ball?

4. Say a press like situation, A1 has ball, A2 is in the backcourt, then frontcourt, then back again. A1 makes the deflected pass off B1, I assume it is not a violation here and A2 can get ball.
How are #3 & #4 any different than #1?

Raymond Thu Aug 09, 2018 01:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1023618)
Yes. That's the place then for signal #14, Tipped Ball, to show that the offense can recover the ball in the backcourt without violating. Right?
Only once the ball makes it to the BC. If you give the signal immediately and then Team A touches the ball in the FC before it goes into the BC, the deflection is moot.

BillyMac Thu Aug 09, 2018 04:25pm
Red Rubber Ball (The Cyrkle, 1966) ...
 
Now that we've got the new backcourt exception completely straightened out, basically reversing that stupid interpretation, can we get back to discussing the other major NFHS rule change?

How deeply pebbled does the ball have to be? How granulated does the surface of the ball have to be? How tightly do the panels have to be bonded to the carcass of the ball?

I want to be ready for my first scrimmage. I don't want to toss an illegal ball, one that's not deeply pebbled enough, or not granulated enough, or whose panels are not bonded tightly enough to the carcass, for my first jump ball.

Let the debate begin.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.A...=0&w=266&h=177

Camron Rust Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:50am
The whole point of making this a rule change is for someone to save face about reading the rule wrong and producing a nonsense interpretation. The new exception doesn't change the rule at all. It just explicitly negates a bad interpretation.

bwburke94 Mon Aug 13, 2018 01:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1023664)
The new exception doesn't change the rule at all. It just explicitly negates a bad interpretation.
And that's all it needed to do.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44pm.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1