BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Sounds like a clear case of apples and oranges.

You got me.

And I was focussed on not spelling it naval...

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You got me.

And I was focussed on not spelling it naval...

No problem, glad to help.

Now I'm going to go back to my corner and shut up, like I was told.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now I'm going to go back to my corner and shut up, like I was told.

When did it get that easy?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When did it get that easy?

Once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, like viewing Halley's comet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, like viewing Halley's comet.

Unless you're JR or Padgett, then Halley's comes around two or three times.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Unless you're JR or Padgett, then Halley's comes around two or three times.

To be accurate, the scientific notation for this object is comet Halley (pronounced hal-lee - rhymes with alley). In astronomy, you indicate the type of object first, then it's name.

I know this because I worked at the Oregon Museum of Science & Industry for five years then opened up my own telescope and binocular shop just to take advantage of comet Halley.

BTW - when I worked at OMSI, people would frequently come in and ask us what the difference was between astronomy and astrology. Our stock answer was "astronomy is the scientific study of objects in the sky while astrology is a load of crap."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I know this because I worked at the Oregon Museum of Science & Industry for five years then opened up my own telescope and binocular shop just to take advantage of comet Halley.

Did they tell you that Mark Twain was born in a year that the comet came by, and died the next time it came around?

[Kelvin green]

I have read and actually reread this thread three times and my head hurts.

I believe that the rule as rewritten added a bunch of ambigutity to this mess.

Here's my conclusion, the rule writers screwed up. They tried to list exceptions by making parenthetical statements and they missed the point. There used to be three clear exceptions. They just muddied the waters..

if you look at the rule without the parentheical defensive player, or throw-in, or jump call) the whole rule makes more sense!

From the rule book" A player from the team not in control 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. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

1) since there is no team control on a thow-in,( I am not worried about who is offensive or defensive player here!) a player can catch the ball from front court and land back court. The new case book play just clarifies that on the throw-in, the exception ends when the throw-in ends. Makes sense since this is supposed to be throw-in exception. What we have to remember is that control is esatblished when the ball is caught!

I believe this created an unintended extrapolation that might allow the Team B (read this defensive player) to catch a deflected ball on a throwin from his front court and land back court and it be a violation I dont think that the NFHS wanted us to penalize a "defensive team" but it does make a consistent scenario

Ball is now in play and there is no team controlBY either team, regular backcourt rules apply. If the team control is now established in FC and ball goes BC and team is first to touch it, it is a BC violation.

just like any other loose ball play where there is no control and a team secures control with both feet off theground. (read that the long shot scenario)

2) The jump ball exception is a no brainer

3) the normal defensive exception is no brainer, defense is not in control by definition.

4) If the parenthticals are considered conclusive and defining, then on a loose ball after a shot if a player jumps from their backcourt, secures the ball and goes backcourt then it is a violation.

Personally, I would just as soon see the parentheticals removed and just let any team when the ball is not in control of either team catch the ball with both feet off the floor and let them come down. I really think it would be more consistent across the board. But I will have to wait for that one

[Nevadaref]

Kelvin, that's what I said last year in our thread on this.

I will add that the moment to assess whether or not there is a team in control is just prior to when the player jumps. In other words if his team is not in control when he left the floor, then he should not be penalized for a backcourt violation, if he caught the ball while airborne and then landed.

That is what I had contended. It is clearly NOT what the NFHS was thinking as we can see from the new casebook play. Oh well...

[Jurassic Referee]

From the NFHS website....2007-08 rules interpretations.

Situation #9: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt(team B's backcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt and catches the ball in the air. B1 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and and the second foot in the backcourt.
RULING: Backcourt violation on team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection(legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in team B's frontcourt and then steps in team B's backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exception on a throw-in and a defensive player and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1;9-9-3)

'Nuff said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From the NFHS website....2007-08 rules interpretations.

Situation #9: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt(team B's backcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt and catches the ball in the air. B1 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and and the second foot in the backcourt.
RULING: Backcourt violation on team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection(legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in team B's frontcourt and then steps in team B's backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exception on a throw-in and a defensive player and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1;9-9-3)

'Nuff said.

Are you sure about that?

All this says talks about is the provision for a normal landing (with one foot in the FC followed by one in the backcourt). It says nothing about who is on defense nor the play where B2 lands entirely in the backcourt. It merely says the normal landing provision only applys to the first player to touch the ball on a throwin. I doesn't say anything about whether that player is on defense or not.

This does not satisfy your previously established measure of definitive.

[Jurassic Referee]