Normal Landing ...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Comment #2:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Billy:

With respect to your question, I never gave it much thought because I only concerned myself with "...and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt." That said I would rule A2's actions legal.

I would propose that the last sentence in R9-S9-A3 should read: "It makes no difference whether the player's first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt." This would remove all ambiguity.

What say you?

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Since IAABO Board #55 went defunct a few years back, Mark, Jr. and I are now Indivdual Members and thus only receive the Handbook and the Refresher Exam but not the answer key to the Refresher Exam. When you have a chance this week could you email me a copy of the Refresher Exam's answer key. Thanks.

Comment #6:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not have a problem with my proposed wording for R9-S9-A3, because in my "humble", , opinion it would bring it in alignment with how we adjudicate R4-S44. While not exactly like the IAABO Refresher Exam play, see NFHS CB Play 4.44.3B for a similar situation of indecision by an Offensive Player who is in Control of the Ball.

MTD, Sr.

Comment #9:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What about a player who during a throw-in, while airborne, catches the inbounds pass after jumping from the frontcourt, lands solidly with one foot in the frontcourt, incorrectly believes that to put his other foot down in the backcourt would result in a backcourt violation, so he consciously hesitates while trying to maintain his balance while remaining on one foot for a second, but end ups losing his balance and his other foot falls into the backcourt?

Is that "normal landing"?

Comment #10:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

replace "normal" with "otherwise legal"

Comment #11:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In what context? Rule 9-9-3? A specific post in this thread?

1) Let me first reply to Billy's Comment #9. My answer to your question is: Since A2's footwork with regard to the Traveling Rule (NFHS R4-S44) is legal, my answer is: Yes.


2a) Bob: Your Comment #10 caused me to pause and think about what I said in my Comments #2 and #6. In my Comment #2 I proposed that the last sentence of R9-S9-A3 should read: "It makes no difference whether the player's first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.", while you proposed that it is should read: "The player may make an otherwise legal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

2b) Which made me think (Me thinking! What a concept! LOL!). Whether the last sentence of NFHS R9-S3-A3 reads: i) as currently reads: "The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."; ii) your proposal: "The player may make an otherwise legal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."; or iii) my proposal: "It makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

2c) IAABO Question 40 is easy to adjudicate , because we can apply NFHS R4-S44-A2a2, and every since R9-S9-A3 was adopted almost 30 years ago, every NFHS Rules Interpretation and Casebook Play Situation, NCAA Men's/Women's A.R. and Rules Interpretation, and IAABO Refresher Exam Question that I can remember always had A2 with one foot landing in the Front Court first followed by the other foot landing in the Back Court second, a situation in which A2's foot work is governed by NFHS R4-S44-A2a2. But not once (that I can remember) has a situation where A2, after his/her foot first lands in the Front Court and then jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both feet in the Back Court, a situation in which A2's foot work is governed by NFHS R4-S44-A2a3.

2d) A2's foot work in both situations in 2c) are legal with regard to R4-S44-A2 and no Back Court Violation has occured in the situation governed by R4-S44-A2a2 but is the situation governed by R4-S44-A2a3 a Back Court Violation?

3) Billy with regard to your Comment #11, I think that I may have muddied the waters. I apologize.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Comment #11, I think that I may have muddied the waters.

No you didn't "muddy" any water. Adding the word "hesitates" to the exam question "muddied" the water.

Enjoy.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No you didn't "muddy" any water. Adding the word "hesitates" to the exam question "muddied" the water.

Enjoy.

Our generation (Boomers) made the best music!

MTD, Sr.