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

[walt]

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."

[JRutledge]

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

[walt]

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!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by walt

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]

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.
(correct link updated)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.
(correct link updated)

I think this is very good. It goes through the process of the rule. Good job.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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) ...

Originally Posted by walt

... 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.