Backcourt violation...maybe

[kycat1]

Please review the information that I will paste below here about this rule maybe being reviewed by the rules committee next year!

I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by kycat1

If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred.

Mary

This just proves that nobody's perfekt.

[kycat1]

Who you or Mary??? LOL

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Who you or Mary??? LOL

Mary. But I made the spelling error on purpose, so as to seem less pompous.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Please review the information that I will paste below here about this rule maybe being reviewed by the rules committee next year!
...

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

Once again, they're talking about an editorial change that materialy changes the actual rule. There is NO way that the current wording can be interpreted to mean what she had suggested. Recent committees have been notorious about making editorial changes that actualy change the meaning of the rule and the rule itself.

[bonehead]

Originally Posted by kycat1

Please review the information that I will paste below here about this rule maybe being reviewed by the rules committee next year!

I just now finally got a respnse from Mary Struckoff from NFHS Rules committee about this play that was strongly argued in the original post. Many of you said I was completely wrong and we agreed to disagree. I have copied Mary's reply and her interpretation of this ruling. please see below!

Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience.

Actually, I have given this much thought and have been thinking about it for some time now.

I do believe the intent of the rule is that where the ball is touched is important. If it comes back to the frontcourt after touching the official in the backcourt and the offensive player regains control in the frontcourt, both have frontcourt status and no violation has occurred. They just got lucky that the ball hit the official and came back....that can be true of an errant pass about to fly out of bounds and hits the official and stays inbounds.....In order to be a violation, it must be touched in the backcourt.

I will run this by the committee in April to make sure they agree and see if they want to make any editorial changes to the rule itself.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter

Did the committee ever confirm Mary's ruling on this backcourt situation?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bonehead

Did the committee ever confirm Mary's ruling on this backcourt situation?

Don't know about this one, but they made another interpretation which was just as bogus.

We don't speak of these things here.