WOW.
 

That was quick. Another good point.

What do we do now???

I think maybe the brackets suggest that they are examples and not necessarily every situation listed where there is no team control. Because we know that there is no team control after a shot.

Wow, maybe "e.g." within those brackets would solve our problem.

OK. everyone take out your pen and put "e.g." within the brackets. I'm doing it right now. It will fit don't worry. LOL.

That's exactly the way I read it too.

I see your point, guys. To me, it's unfortunate that they had to provide examples and leave one out. The rule states "a player from the team not in control may legally...." Parenthetical comments can be removed without changing the meaning of a sentence. In this case, you remove the parenthetical and it's clear that the play is legal.

I wish the Fed would either add the other example (not sure off hand if there are other situations where no team would have control, but I don't think so) or drop the parenthesis altogether.

The specified items in 9-9-3 developed as 'exceptions' - not as a way to broadly address situations with 'no control'.

In particular, the exception for the 'defensive' player was made, I believe, to reward a mid-air steal near the midcourt line of a ball <i>in control</i> of the other team.

The three exceptions
 

I think we should look at these as examples of situations where there is no team control and not the ONLY situations where there is no team control. Rule states "A player from the team not in control..." and gives the 3 examples/exceptions. Maybe it should also say "A player from 'A' team not in control". Saying "THE", suggests that there is a team in control, which contradicts the examples of 'jump ball, and throw-in'.

Does that make sense. The rule in itself, according to the english language contradicts itself.

I think they should just rewrite the whole thing to read:

"A player from A team not in control (E.G. defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin OR AFTER A MISSED SHOT)..."

Does anyone know how to make that change happen???LOL.

Am I making any sense here???

Re: The three exceptions
 

Yes, the language is poor, but not positively obtuse. We know from the evolution of the rule (from exceptions to incorporation within the rule) what's meant.

Think of it this way: "A player from the team not in control, that is, a defensive player, or [a player] during a jump ball or throw-in, may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt."

Would it be good for the game if the exceptions were expanded to include any loose ball backcourt situation where control is obtained in the air? There's the matter of judging at high speed whether or not a player is making 'normal landing' or trying to perch on one foot, thus giving up the exception. This would be more of that . . . not that that happens that often . . .

Jeff is correct with regard to the evolution of the rule. Previously, the exceptions were very clear. There were exceptions for a throw-in, a jump ball, and a steal by an airborne defender. There has never been an exception for a rebounder.

When the exceptions were rewritten as as 9-9-3, the rules did not change. They simply moved from exception to rule, a semantical change, not a philosophical one.

psycho, the fact that you're discussing that the NFHS should change the rule to include a rebounder after a missed shot makies it clear what the rule presetnly is. If the rule covered rebounders, it wouldn't need to be changed, now would it? :)

Oddly enough I discussed this very play with a fellow official for the first time earlier this season. I just had never thought of the long rebound with an airborne player situation since the wording of the rule was changed.

The funny part is that I had this discussion with a first year official who had just worked the first varsity games of his life. Whe were going over TH's backcourt quiz on the car ride home and he inquired about the rebounding play.

I told him then that I had learned something from him. See you can learn from everyone! :)

Now my opinion is that the rewording of the rule did, in fact, change the rule. I believe that this play should NOT be a violation. The three items listed in parentheses should not be taken as all inclusive. Here's the proof:

Jumpball to start the game. The jumpers are A1 and B1. A1 taps the ball. Then A2 taps the ball, but he is not able to gain control. Now A3 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball with both feet off the floor, and subsequently lands with both feet in the backcourt. Violation or not?

Recall the exact wording of the rule says, "<font color = blue>during</font> a jump ball" and when does the jump ball end?

4-28-3 "The jump ball begins when the ball leaves the referee's hand(s) and ends when the touched ball contacts a nonjumper, the floor, a basket or backboard."

The casebook play doesn't cover the scenario above. Only the play in which the first nonjumper who touches the ball and subsequently lands in the backcourt is given in 9.9.1 SITUATION B. That first nonjumper gets an exception. However, what about the second nonjumper to touch the ball? Certainly, his action isn't during the jumpball!

It is my opinion that both of these are oversights by the committee of rules writers and that neither one should be a backcourt violation.

Of course, that is just my little ole opinion.

It is my opinion that both of these are oversights by the committee of rules writers and that neither one should be a backcourt violation.

Of course, that is just my little ole opinion.
[/B][/QUOTE]It is my opinion that you think too much. :D

It is also my opinion that your opinion is wrong.

LMOA!!!!!!!! :)

LMOA? :confused:

Laughing My Orifice Away?

1. We know that the 'exception' does not transfer to a second player during a throw-in. By analogy, would you expect it to transfer to a second player in the jump ball situation?

2. Regarding the long-rebound, I would be comfortable to see it included, for symmetry. I can imagine making the call if a rebound came straight out to midcourt, but in the oddball case in which the ball is tapped, tapped, tapped in the air all the way out to midcourt, where there would be a lot of decision making (not a foul, not a foul, not a foul) along the way, it might be hard to cue up the exception at the last instant . . .

Good point, however...
 

BktBallRef, good point, however the rule contradicts itself for 2 reasons.

1. By saying "A player from the team not in control...", suggests that there is only one team that is not in control, which we know is not true because during a jump and throw-in neither team is in control. (not necessarily as important as #2).

2. Leaving the bracketed situations, "A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throwin)", suggests that these are the ONLY situations where there is no team control. Which is plain wrong. Either the bracketed situations should be removed, making the rule apply to all situations where there is no team control, or all situations should be listed, or it should be specified that these are examples of no team control and not the only situations.

You are right BktBallRef, "If the rule covered rebounders, it wouldn't need to be changed...", because all situations where there is no team control, would be listed (to the best of my knowledge). Although now Nevadaref brought up a good point about "during a jumpball", which I guess would also apply to a throw-in, which means if we specify the exceptions we would have to say "during or after a jump ball, until control is established", (same for throw-in), which would just be too long and redundant. I think the examples/exceptions should be taken out and we would refer to the Team Control definition, to know WHEN a team has control.

Assignmentmaker, why doesn't the 'exception' transfer to a second player during a throw-in?
Example: A1 is making a throw-in in A's front court, the throw-in is tipped uncontrollably by A2, and again by A3, and then A4 jumps from A's front court, catches the ball in midair, and lands in A's backcourt. Did you mean that this is a violation?

[Edited by psycho_ref on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:06 PM]

The "exception" absolutely applies to a second player, as long as the first one didn't actually have control. The exception doesn’t apply to a 2nd player after the first one gains control. Two different issues.

Two situations that show the OP is not a violation. Inspired by Nevada.

1. Throw-in from near division line. A1 throws the ball in, and it is tipped by B1 (or A3). A2 jumps from his front court and grabs the ball before landing in the back court. The throw-in is over once B1 tips the ball, so if we relegate the "exception" to the examples given in parentheses, the violation should be called. If we go by the wording of the rule without the parentheses, it's legal.

2. The jump ball situation mentioned previously, whether tipped by A2 or B1, caught by airborne A1 who leapt from his front court and landed in his back court. Same results as #1 above.

Neither of these situations is included in the parenthetical examples of "team not in control," because the throw-in and jump ball, respectively, are over once the ball is touched by the first non-thrower or non-jumper.

Are we calling a violation on #1 and #2? It seems to me we have to if we're going to call it on the OP.