The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2018, 02:51pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,177
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.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2018, 03:23pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 12,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2018, 03:54pm
Statistician/Ref Hybrid
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 959
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.
__________________
Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." – Dalai Lama

The center of attention as the lead & trail. – me
Games officiated: 320 Basketball · 55 Softball
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2018, 03:55pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
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.
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2018, 05:02pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 16,495
Let's Go To The Hop (Danny And The Juniors,, 1958) ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
9-9-1 EXCEPTION in New '18,19 Rules Book
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.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 19, 2018, 10:27pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,177
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.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 19, 2018, 11:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,239
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 19, 2018, 11:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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.
Comical that the NFHS still incorrectly states this. At least that Interp is now gone.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 20, 2018, 12:42am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,184
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 20, 2018, 01:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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...

Quote:
SITUATION 7: SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards 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)
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 20, 2018, 05:43am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 16,495
Freddy's Not Dead ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
August issue of Referee magazine came today and included an article 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 ... 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.
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).
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2018, 10:32am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,184
2018-2019 NF PowerPoint Addressed the 9-9-1 Exception

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

Quote:
An exception has been added to the rule to clarify that any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense even if the ball has not touched in the backcourt following the deflection, as shown in the PlayPic.

[IMG][/IMG]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
It was already legal for an offensive player to be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, if it was last touched in the frontcourt by a player on the defensive team, and if the ball had obtained backcourt status before the recovery.
[IMG][/IMG]


Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2018, 12:13pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,390
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2018, 12:54pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2018, 01:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: DE
Posts: 226
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."
__________________
I love this bar!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New 16/17 Rules Book Freddy Basketball 27 Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:53am
Rules book and case book bigjohn Football 39 Tue Oct 23, 2012 07:16pm
NFHS Rules book & case book on my phone. referee99 Basketball 28 Wed Jan 11, 2012 06:17am
Best book (besides rule book) for learning rules? Johnny Cakes Football 2 Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:43am
Rules Not In the Book Rick Durkee Basketball 8 Sat Nov 26, 2005 09:31pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1