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."

Cannot see the clip.

Peace

Walt,
Please post a link that works or adjust settings to grant access. I'm interested in what the clip you're sending looks like.
Thanx

https://iaabo.org/BackCourt/index.html

Try this. If not, I will get a copy directly from the guy who filmed it.

That's works.

Now just waiting on 5-7 posts from Billy.

LOL!

This play was also given to the NFHS at their request. Crazy how a situation that had to be "scripted and filmed" has caused this much angst among officials and members of the rules committee. Our organization has HUDL and every HS game played in the state is available for review. The guy who filmed this went back through 3 years of game films and never once saw this play. He told me they had to create a video because there were still people at the NFHS who would not give up and insisted this is a backcourt violation without seeing a visual play to review. So one night at our summer camp, we filmed it.

Then they clearly are tone deaf. Do these people watch or consume any other level of basketball? Seriously, they did not think that this would create some other issues and this is the best they could come up with?

Peace

I have association archives going back eight years and couldn't find anything that would apply until that one camp clip I posted previously. Admittedly it's rare, and I don't think anyone would have called it by the Interpretation anyway.

I Heard It Through The Grapevine (Gladys Knight & the Pips, 1967) ... ...
 

Is her name Gladys Knight?

walt beat me to it. I just opened up my email from IAABO a few minutes ago. Now I'm waiting for someone to say, "But that's only IAABO, let's wait for the NFHS to come out with it's rulebook, casebook, simplified illustrated book, annual interpretations, mechanics manual, and for officials to get a few scrimmages and games under their black belts, and only then will we be certain that the NFHS hasn't completely switched over to the NCAA backcourt exception".

Completely? This interpretation or rule has absolutely nothing to do with the new NCAA back court exception.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Agree ...
 

I know that. I've known it for a long time. You know that. Lots of Forum members know that. Does every single Forum member know what we know?

It appears that a few camp clinicians, at least one female state commissioner, and at least one Forum member, may have jumped the gun.

Actually, I am not convinced you or anyone knew anything. If you were sure you would not have been trying to convince anyone here what you thought over and over and over again. That clearly did not show much knowledge of the situation. For one the exception is not very well written for a situation that they described and the play did not even seem to cover the situation they used in that IAABO video. What many of us were doing and all we could do is speculate what was the situation or what they meant? I know as in the past and in many sports that the NF has a tendency to write a rule and then have to change it a few times to get it right. That is why I referenced the "Horsecollar" rule in football. They wrote the rule one way and it took 3 years to get it right. I would not be surprised if this rule is rewritten next year or even modified this year because of the vagueness of this interpretation. "First touch, last touch" was never really addressed because this play is not really a "first touch, last touch" situation at all. I was speculating on what was the ultimate meaning and clearly, there were others that were thinking the same thing across the country. And many of those were actually likely in the room when the decision was being made.

Peace

Just The Facts Ma'am ...
 

I was sure, which is why I tried to convince other Forum members. Why would I try to convince someone if I had any doubt, which would be foolish.

Based on the original written proposal, submitted by Julian Tackett of Lexington, Kentucky, that was eventually accepted by the NFHS rules committee, and based on the early information that was released by the NFHS, there was no doubt in my mind what the NFHS had in mind, to fix the stupid interpretation. In order for the NFHS backcourt rule to match the NCAA backcourt rule, much would have to be added to the early released information. That was certainly possible, and, in fact, the NFHS may eventually change to the NCAA rule over the next few years, but nothing, not one phrase, not one word, not one definition, had to be added to the early released information for it to end up as it ended up, and as many on the Forum thought it would end up. We had all the information that we needed from the beginning. No need to speculate. No need to wait, with bated breath, for more information to be released.

Yes some well intentioned people jumped the gun. Maybe their 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), though not accepting it, fueled this fire.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.P...=0&w=179&h=163

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."

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

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

Jumping the Gun
 

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. :cool:
(correct link updated)

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

Peace

Freddy's Not Dead ...
 

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?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.D...=0&w=453&h=182

Hold On, I'm Comin' (Sam & Dave, 1966) ...
 

Coming soon to a theater near you.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.7...=0&w=266&h=180

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.

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.

:rolleyes:

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?

How are #3 & #4 any different than #1?

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.

Red Rubber Ball (The Cyrkle, 1966) ...
 

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.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.A...=0&w=266&h=177

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.

And that's all it needed to do.

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

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

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

Quantum Physics On The Forum, How Cool Is That ??? ...
 

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.

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.

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

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

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

Not The NFHS's Finest Hour ...
 

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.

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