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

New rules book arrived today and features this wordage added to 9-9-1:

EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Guess we'll be awaiting any further clarification they deem necessary when the Casebook comes out and the Interpretations are published.

So, we are still at the same spot we were when the initial changed was announced. I'm still trying to figure out which element of 9-9-1 this exception pertains to.

Assuming Referee magazine is correct (and we know that's a big assumption) the only exception is for the case play where the defense tips the ball in the air and the offensive team catches it in the back court before it hits the ground.


This begs the question others have asked: why not just edit the case play. :confused:

As I said before, we will not know anything until either interpretations, Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook illustration (case plays) or Casebook comes out with a new play addressing the exception.

Peace

Let's Go To The Hop (Danny And The Juniors,, 1958) ...
 

Freddy. You're a big tease. I knew girls like you in high school. The title of our thread made me believe that the entirety of this EXCEPTION would be revealed, but you were faking us out, teasing us, wanting to incite another debate. You just wanted our attention, didn't you? Well forget it. I hate you. I'm taking another girl to the sock hop Friday night.

Referee Magazine Concurrence
 

August issue of Referee magazine came today and included an article (pp.68,69) and five case plays to fully describe situations under 9-9-1. None of them gave any indication that NFHS is going as far as NCAA-M did with their backcourt rule. From this article, which included thanks to Theresia Wynns "for reviewing this information", we get the clear message that all they're really doing is retracting that previously re-released Interpretation. Four case plays are all very simple and standard and have nothing to do with this year's added EXCEPTION, and the fifth one says:

Play 5: Team A has the ball in the froncourt. A1's pass is deflected by B1 and is caught before it returns to the floor by A2, who is standing in the backcourt. Ruling 5: This is now a legal play, covered by the new exception approed by NFHS. Previously, this would have been a backcourt violation on team A because, by rule, when A2 touched the ball it still had frontcourt status, meaning team A was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the baccourt. Now, as soon as the ball crosses from the frontcourt back over the division line, even if it is airborne, team A may be the first to touch and retrieve the ball without penalty.

No language in the brief article nor any of the five case plays gives any indication that they're adopting the change that NCAA-M did last year. Only retracting that NFHS Interpretation.

I'd be surprised if any new addition to the Casebook or newly released Interpretation says anything different.

No, wait. I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course, that is all that the NFHS is doing. That has been clear to the vast majority since the change was announced.

The only people who have said otherwise are a couple of silly posters on here who have trouble reading plain English.

Comical that the NFHS still incorrectly states this. At least that Interp is now gone.

The interpretation in question was started with a throw-in. This play is not a throw-in. This is clearly a dumb change just for something they could have simply just changed with the wording of the interpretation.

Peace

There is no mention of a throwin in the interpretation in question...

Freddy's Not Dead ...
 

Thanks Freddy. However, we all know that Referee magazine has made mistakes in the past (I don't think that this is one of them).

2018-2019 NF PowerPoint Addressed the 9-9-1 Exception
 

This is on pages of 18 and 19, describing the new rule:


[IMG]http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/...eption%201.jpg[/IMG]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IMG]http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/...eption%202.jpg[/IMG]


Peace

Yet again, the NFHS not addressing last-to-touch-first-to-touch.

My state commissioner said she has heard from the NFHS and this new rule is intended to mirror the NBA/NCAA-M rule.

The NF completely screwed up this rule. Completely!!!!

This was not an issue at all if this was all they decided to do with the rule. They could have solved this issue with an interpretation or editorial change. Kind of stupid honestly.

Peace

This is being sent by IAABO and is also going to be issued through the NFHS. I know this because I was in the gym when this video was created. The person who created it is one of the four national IAABO interpreters and is a member of the NFHS rules committee. He was asked to create the video by the NFHS to address the situation being discussed in this rule. The situation is only addressing a situation where the ball has not yet hit the floor in the backcourt after a defensive deflection and is recovered by the offense. An old NFHS interpretation considered this play a backcourt violation. With the new interpretation, this is now a legal play and is not to be ruled a backcourt violation on the offense.


"The intent of this video is to clarify a prior interpretation from the NFHS with regard to a play situation that the NFHS had previously interpreted to be a backcourt violation. The NFHS has NOT adopted any part of the NCAA Men's backcourt rules that govern a ball deflected by a defensive player. Very little will change from the perspective of NFHS governed players, coaches, or officials, as this situation happens so infrequently that many officials will most likely never see this situation in their officiating careers - so infrequent that we couldn't find a single game situation play to illustrate the scenario and "staged" a play to illustrate the scenario.

The clarification … If Team A has team control in its frontcourt and the ball is batted, tapped, tipped, or deflected INTO THE AIR by a Team B player and BEFORE THE BALL HITS THE FLOOR, touches, is touched by, caught, or otherwise controlled by a Team A player WHO IS STANDING IN TEAM A's BACKCOURT OR OTHERWISE HAS BACKCOURT STATUS, Team A has NOT committed a backcourt violation. There is no rule change with regard to backcourt violations!

In a prior year's NFHS interpretation (2017 - 2018 Basketball Rules Interpretations, Oct. 6, 2017), this was to be ruled a backcourt violation by Team A. The new interpretation clarifies that this is not a backcourt violation.

Click https://u5486690.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/...5PezxCB6gtg-3D to view the play."