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

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Originally Posted by walt

... 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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... change any wording or interpretations.

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

Originally Posted by walt

... 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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.

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