9-9-1 exception

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I apologize in advance for the size of this post.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Absolutely nothing.

It is someone's way out of pushing a bogus interpretation without admitting they were wrong.

Originally Posted by SC Official

Here's the interpretation from 2017-18 that was erroneous and is no longer valid (but of course they wouldn't admit to it). They put out the same interpretation ~10 years earlier and doubled down on it last year before making the exception this year.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) The NFHS 2017-18 Rules Interpretation SITUATION 7 and its RULING was neither a "bogus" nor an "erroneous" Interpretation. And it has always been my opinion that the Situation 7 Ruling is the correct Interpretation.

2) But moving forward with this discussion, as a long time commentator in the Basketball Forum I can attest that discussions regarding this play have been taking place all across the country for at least ten years.

3) I started officiating basketball in 1971. I graduated from H.S. in 1969 and played H.S. basketball for a Head Coach who had been an OhioHSAA registered basketball official since his college days after World War II until he retired from coaching in 1971. What that meant is that his players were taught the rules of the game as part of learning how to play the game of basketball. As an example since my freshmen year I have been able to quote chapter and verse with regard to Guarding and Screening (Block/Charge).

4i) Prior to the NFHS 2018-19 R9-S9-A1 EXCEPTION being adopted, the RULING that a Backcourt Violation had occurred for 2017-18 SITUATION 7 goes back to before 1960, at least.

4ii) The logic behind the RULING is described as follows: A2 does two things simultaneously: 1) Causes the Ball to go from Team A's Front Court to Team A's Backcourt and 2) Is the first to touch the Ball in the Backcourt after causing it to go from Team A's Front Court to Team A's Backourt. And for the vast majority of old geezers like me, this analysis is logical, LOL. And that is why the "old" RULING was neither "bogus" or "erroneous".

5) It has only been in the last ten years or so that younger (I mean by experience) and some older (also by experience) that have questioned this RULING.

6) I have always been a proponent of the original RULING (and had I been voting on the Rules Change I would have voted against the new RULING), meaning I prefer the old RULING, and there are many people on the Forum that will agree that I have always been an ardent proponent of the old RULING.

7) BUT as far as I am concerned I am not going to lose any sleep over the new RULING. It is the new RULING so lets move on.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has never been that way and the first I ever heard of someone that though so was when the bogus ruling came out about 10 years ago. It wasn't questioned before because that ruling never existed.

I'm shocked that you actually believe this since the rule doesn't say anything about causing it to go into the backcourt but about being the last to touch BEFORE it goes to the backcourt and being the first to touch it AFTER going to the backcourt.

From a mathematical perspective, this ruling would mean that the following statement could be true: x < y < x. Show me a number where that holds true and I'll agree with you.

1) (1) I am a bald old geezer who is blind in one and cannot see out of my other eye, and (ii) I am a senile old coot.

2) As I have stated before, my H.S. basketball coach (whose family lived only two doors from us and my sister, myself, his four children grew up together as best friends; besides being the boys' VAR basketball coach he was also the boys' and girls' VAR golf coach; and we all played on his golf teams and we boys also played basketball, but I digress, LOL). He also a founding member of the Trumbull County Bkb. Off. Assn. and I have been a member of the TCBOA since I started officiating in 1971.

3) The wording for the Rule has not changed for both boys'/girls' JrHS and HS and men's since the early 1960's. That means the wording of the Rule goes back to the NBC (National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada) which predates the NFHS and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committees.

4i) From JrHS (early-mid 1960s) until I graduated from H.S. (1969) I heard my Coach explain why this PLAY was a Backcourt Violation.

4ii) I started officiating in 1971 and have always been registered by the OhioHSAA. I was registered by: the FloridaHSAA from 1973 to 1977; the Southern California Bkb. Off. Assn. from 1982 to 1984; and since 1984 by the MichiganHSAA.

5) The wording for the Rule has not changed for both boys'/girls' JrHS and HS and men's since the early 1960's. That means the wording of the Rule goes back to the NBC (National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada) which predates the NFHS and NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committees.

6) I will be the first to admit that the wording is ambiguous and that wording led to the Original Interpretation that we have had since the early 1960s and maybe earlier.

7) It was not until the mid to late 1990s that the logic behind the old RULING started to be questioned. And while the wording of the Rule still has not changed, withing the last two years first the NCAA and now the NFHS have added an EXCEPTION that voided the long standing Interpretation.

As I have stated before that I have always been an ardent proponent of the RULING that is close to 60 years old, and if I had been voting I would have voted against the EXCEPTION. But the ayes have it and it is now the "law of the land" and I accept the new RULING.

But to say that the old RULING never existed is just not true. I am a sure that there is a Casebook Play with the old RULING. I am not going to climb up into the attic to look now because my right hip (as I am staring hip replacement surgery) is bothering me to much to do that. And I would bet dollars to donuts that fifty years ago that there were some that did not approve the old RULING and preferred the newly adopted EXCEPTION.

MTD, Sr.