I would say that B2 is a defensive player on this play and thus it is not a violation. But what the heck do I know!?!? :eek:

Scrapper, Thanks for the clarification. I won't get my new books until the first week of October.
For now I will have to wonder if the NFHS changed the wording of the actual rule or simply writing case plays that support the stance that Tony advocated. That being that the during a throw-in, during a jump ball, and defensive player are THE ONLY THREE times that an exception is granted. If that is the case, then it seems to me that they should have just kept the old wording. It was clearer.

I also agree with Jurassic's point that the members of this discussion forum have once again caused the NFHS to issue a clarification. If we can keep having that kind of positive impact then we are not wasting our time. :)

PS Congrats to BktBallRef for championing the position that the NFHS elected to support. ;)

In simpler terms what the NFHS is now telling us is that since this action does NOT take place (1) during a throw-in, (2) during a jump ball, or (3) by a defensive player (The last being because there is no clear offensive team or clear defensive team in this scenario.), the player is not granted an exception and thus this is a violation.

At least that is how I now understand the rule after reading the new case play posted by Scrapper.

I'm just happy I didn't chime in on the other thread (because I think I would've been wrong and ended up owing Bktballref $5).

I don't think it's "simpler terms" to try to explain why an exception doesn't apply. This play has nothing to do with the exceptions so why bring them up? It only further confuses the issue for someone who doesn't already understand it.

The only simple term left dangling is when a defender stops being a defender.
On this deflected throw-in, is B1 still considered a defender or not?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
In simpler terms what the NFHS is now telling us is that since this action does NOT take place (1) during a throw-in, (2) during a jump ball, or (3) by a defensive player (The last being because there is no clear offensive team or clear defensive team in this scenario.), the player is not granted an exception and thus this is a violation.

At least that is how I now understand the rule after reading the new case play posted by Scrapper.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Because if the play doesn't qualify as one of the three exceptions then it is obviously a violation. That is all that I am saying.

JAR understands the basics of the backcourt rule. He is struggling to know when a play qualifies for the "defensive player" exception.
I can't answer that question at this time. I haven't seen the new rules or case book yet and don't know what the NFHS has written.

Perhaps they've decided that when one team has team control then the players on the other team are "defensive" players.
Perhaps there can be "defensive" players during a throw-in even though there is no team control by definition because one team clearly has the ball. Perhaps not.

Right now, I just don't know what to tell you. :(

Perhaps Tony can provide the answer. He seems to know exactly what the NFHS is thinking on this backcourt stuff. :D

NFHS rule 9-9-3 has <n>NOT</b> changed in this year's book. The case play clarifies that Tony was right.

How can there be a "defender" when neither team had established themselves as the offensive team?:confused:

When airborne A2 grabbed the deflected throw-in, that's when team A established player and team control, and that's also when team A became the offensive team and team B became the defensive team. Iow, deciding when or if B1 becomes a defender doesn't enter at all into the final call; it's simply not relevant when B1 becomes a defender. The only pertinent fact needed is that after gaining control, A2 did not meet the requirements of the exception listed in 9-9-3 and committed a violation.

I don't have any answers about this question, but the statement above seems to me to be a stretch, at best. The team with the ball would seem to me to be on offense, even if the person with the ball is an inbounder. The other team is clearly trying to defend, especially when the throw-in is near the inbounding team's goal.

For the purposes of this case play, I honestly don't know what the NFHS has in mind about when B1 becomes a defender. But in real life on the court, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the throw-in team is on offense and the other team is on defense. It just seems silly to say that they're not on defense until somebody from the throw-in team controls the ball inbounds.

If you look at some different rules, you'll see that on throw-ins the FED consistently uses the verbiage "opponent of the thrower" instead of "defender". See 7-6-4, 9-2-10&PENALTIES. I believe that it does so that it's rules language will fall in place with the definitions of "control" in R4-12. Iow, it doesn't look like a stretch to me; it's looks perfectly logical to me from a rules perspective. If there is <b>no</b> player or team control, there is no offense or defense.

I agree with what you say, but it's also inconsistent with the reason for the exceptions. In general terms, if a team can reasonably be expected to be responsible for the location of the ball, then they are responsible for a BC violation. If not, then they are given some leeway in the BC rules.

So, I'd say it's "consistent" for B2 to be able to grab a tipped inbounds pass in the air and land in the BC without causing a violation.

Of course, I'd say that *either team* should be able to recover an errant shot in the air without causing a BC violation as well (but that's not the rule).

Well, I guess this clears it all up then. It's obvious from this that the committee intends the parenthetical statement in this rule to be all-inclusive rather than merely providing examples. I stand corrected.

I agree that B2 grabbing a tipped in-bounds pass should logically be allowed the same exemption as if the throw-in was not tipped. Note though that any player of team A would also be called for a violation if they caught a tipped throw-in in mid-air going from their frontcourt to backcourt. That was my point re: there not really being an offense or defense until someone established player control. R9-9-3 is consistent in that it was simply written without regard to an "offensive player" or a "defender". It applies to any player on the court.

Read the rule. "...the team not in control..." The rule says nothing about team control. On a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. The statement in the rule book has nothing to do with team or player control at this point. If I'm the thrower, I have control. If you are my opponent, you are a defender.

We may be the only people who debate what the rule used to be after it's been changed. :p