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

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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

...

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?

[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?