9-9-1 EXCEPTION in New '18,19 Rules Book

TopicalTropical

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

:rolleyes:

TopicalTropical wrote
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

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

TopicalTropical wrote
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

TopicalTropical wrote
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

Freddy wrote
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

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.

Camron Rust

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

Camron Rust wrote
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.

Nevadaref

Camron Rust wrote
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.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.

Raymond

Camron Rust wrote
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.

I was saying from the beginning that the new "exception" had nothing to do with the rule is was supposedly excepting.

JRutledge

bwburke94 wrote
And that's all it needed to do.

This could have been an editorial change. They did not need an exception to a rule the exception does not apply. All they did was make the rule more confusing. Most people will never see this specific conversation or all the literature, especially after this year if they do not change any wording or interpretations.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
All they did was make the rule more confusing.

It was the interpretation that was confusing, especially when the NFHS told us that a player could simultaneously be the last to touch and the first to touch (one player could do both in a split second, like quantum physics, that it is possible to be in two locations at the same time). Technically, according to some on the NFHS rules committee, the original rule language could be subjected to a ton of very literal scrutiny to agree with the stupid interpretation.

walt wrote
... there are still people on the NFHS rules committee who believe this previous rule interpretation should stand.

Whether we would have called the violation, or not, at least now we have a rule that gets rid of what most of us believed to be an erroneous interpretation. We probably won't see this in a game (give a million players a basketball on a court with a division line for a million years and it might happen once), but when the situation shows up on a written exam, all of us will be able to confidently answer correctly, based on the new rule language.

JRutledge wrote
... change any wording or interpretations.

Ask, and it shall be given you. (Matthew 7:7)

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

Let's all hope that it's sooner rather than later.

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
It was the interpretation that was confusing, especially when the NFHS told us that a player could simultaneously be the last to touch and the first to touch (one player could do both in a split second, like quantum physics, that it is possible to be in two locations at the same time). Technically, according to some on the NFHS rules committee, the original rule language could be subjected to a ton of very literal scrutiny to match the stupid interpretation.

Again, this was confusing because they added an exception to a rule that does not address that actual rule. I could give a damn what the interpretation that no one knew was even there. Again, not everyone reads the casebook that deep to the point they know of a situation like that. Instead, they caused a great deal of confusion from almost everyone as to what they meant and I am not talking about the people on this site. There was serious confusion at all the high school camps I attended and even most needed a clarification to even get what they wanted. This was an internal conversation turned to everyone else.

It is also tone deaf when you do not realize that there are officials that also work other levels that might also be confused by your rule. The rules should be for everyone to understand, not just people on the committee.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
Instead, they caused a great deal of confusion from almost everyone as to what they meant and I am not talking about the people on this site. There was serious confusion at all the high school camps I attended ...

Most of us would agree that this was not the NFHS's finest hour.

First a stupid interpretation (maybe correct after very literal word by word scrutiny combined with some quantum physics) that few of us would have called, even after the stupid interpretation was first published. Then the NFHS doubled down on the stupid interpretation. Then, when presented with a rule exception proposal to change the stupid interpretation to something less stupid, the rule committee had difficulty coming to an agreement as to whether, or not, the stupid interpretation was correct. Then, after finally agreeing that the stupid interpretation was incorrect, and then agreeing on a rule change, the NFHS published a press release that could have been more detailed, like mentioning the stupid interpretation that was fixed, that left many guessing about the intent of the change (maybe due to a second proposal, voted down, that changed to the NCAA backcourt rule).

Yes, this was not the NFHS's finest hour.

JRutledge wrote
The rules should be for everyone to understand, not just people on the committee.

Agree 100%. We shouldn't have to know the secret handshake to understand the rules.

« Previous Page