BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)
 

From the new casebook:

*9.9.1 SITUATION D: Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's throw-in is deflected by B1; A2 jumps from Team A's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. A2 gains player and team control in the air after having left the floor from Team A's frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt status. As soon as A2 lands in the backcourt, he/she has committed a backcourt violation. The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-3)

WOW... I am glad we got a clarification on my play that was submitted for discussion back in November 2006.
Oh, by the way. How do I get the new casebook?

Through your local association, your state governing body or buy it direct from the FED.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=29479

Now I hope the rules maker take a look at these plays and come up with a solid clarification.
I would like the violation to be on the player catching the ball. Not the player throwing in the ball. Oh well.....

I guess I'll have to wait until I receive my basketball stuff from the State. I am guessing that will be about 3-4 weeks.

I stand corrected. I don't necessarily agree with the logic, but it is not my place to do so. My remaining question has to do with the other play which Tony posted on the other thread:

A1 shoots, ball comes off the backboard and rim hard and bounds all the way out to the division line. A2 leaps from his FC, catches the ball while airborne, and lands in the BC. Is this a violation? Damn skippy it is.

Is this a violation on only team A? Is it significant that A was last in control?
Or would it also be a violation on B if A's shot is batted out to the division line and B1 jumps from his FC, secures control, and lands in BC?

I would think that it would have to be a violation on either team in this case, but I'm not gonna bet the farm on it.

Damn, I get tired of being right all the time. :rolleyes:

Did you really expect one sooner? The season is underway in November 2006, and I think the rules committee only meets once per year (and it's very rare the mid-season interps are published). So, the have an answer for the next season -- sounds about right to me.

Consider these points and perhaps it won't be as difficult.

1-There is no Team A or Team B in this play.
2- It makes no difference which team shot the ball, who was on defense, who was on offense.
3- It's a loose ball, there's no team control and no one is "entitled" to the ball.

When player #12 jumps from his FC and grabs the ball, he has now established team control, the ball has FC status, and he is the last player to touch the ball in the FC. When he lands in the BC, he has committed a BC violation.

It's actually no different than the play Scrapper1 cited.

Good stuff, Scrappy.

I actually got an e-mail from my board's interpreter a month or two ago saying no violation. Glad it got cleared up by Fed.

It's not the first time that related case plays have come out after some lengthy rules discussions on this forum. Methinks some things that we discuss are getting back to members of the rules committee.

This was the original thread.:D

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=29471

Damned if a bunch of you didn't miss that one!! :D

When you say there is no Team A or B, does that mean simply that there is no team control, (like the case play) or does this refer to the fact that team control by A ended on the try, and there is no more Team A & B (offense/defense) until team control is reestablished?

The red part here is also true in the case play. I don't know what you mean by "entitled to the ball." When is one entitled to the ball?

My new question:

Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's throw-in is deflected by B1; B2 jumps from Team B's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. Is this a violation, or is B2 still considered a defender in this play?

"team control by A ended on the try, and there is no more Team A & B (offense/defense) until team control is reestablished"

Correct. There is no offense or defense. The rule equally applies to all 10 players on the field.

"The red part here is also true in the case play. I don't know what you mean by "entitled to the ball." When is one entitled to the ball?"

In the case play, a team is entitled to the ball because they have the throwin, therefore, they are Team A.

I'm just trying to help you see that in your play, no matter which team a player is on, he can't jump from his FC, gain player control of the ball and land in his BC. It's a BC violation.

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

:rolleyes:

Rule 4-12-6--<i><b>"Neither team control nor player control exists during a ....throw-in...."</b></i>

If a teammate committed a foul before the throw-in ended, would you really call that foul a team control foul?

We're not talking about team control. We are talking about one team being in control, thus making a player on the other team a defender.

Please tell me that you aren't serious.

A team is <b>NOT</b> in control when a thrower has the ball OOB during a throw-in. Neither team. That's a basic.

I'm talking about what the rules say. Nothing else. The rules say that neither team is in control during a throw-in. The rules also say that neither team can establish team control until one of their players establish player control. When there's no team control, there's no defender.

The above quote was cut and pasted from the original thread. It was from Tony. Ask him if he was serious.:D

I can't believe he was serious either then.

Simply holding the ball does not equate to team control ever. A player can stand at the scorers table at half time holding on to the game ball. That doesn't mean that his team now has control and the other team is on defense.

If there's no team control, there's no defender.

Or...a player can take his favorite game ball to bed with him during nap time and rub it up against his face along with his favorite blankie. Believe me, if he does that, he's definitely not in control.

Damn - I've got to find those meds. :o

In that case he might need a defender....a public defender.:D

This is exactly right except under ncaa rules for throw in. Well, here it gets trickier. Certainly for the purposes of time out only "the offense" can be granted a time out during a throw in. So thinking in terms of offense/defense helps for at least this situation. Not sure it helps elsewhere though, not worth bothering with IMO

But I agree with your over-all message.

Good point. But.....that's why I think that they wrote the TO rule as only to be granted when the ball is in <b>control of</b> or at the <b>disposal</b> of his/her team. The thrower has the ball at his disposal, without control(using rules semantics for the definition of control).

To be quite honest, I really don't know what difference all this verbiage makes anyway. We're still gonna call the play the way the rules lay it out, and the way that the rules lay it out, it don't make no nevermind who is called the defender on this particular play. It's a violation no matter which of the 10 players does it.

Agree on both of your points...it's just more navel gazing from the navel gazing committee.

Sounds like a clear case of apples and oranges.
http://www.honeybell.com/img/products/l/4295.jpg

Shut up.

The rule book disagrees with you.

9-9-3
A player from the team not in control (defensive player or 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. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.


During a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. It has nothing to do with team control or player control. A defensive player is a member of the opponent of the thrower.

The fact that there's no team control during a throw-in does not mean that one team is not on defense.

There is no NFHS Basketball Rules definition for the word control. There are only definitions for player control and team control.

Therefore, we rely on Webster's definition, just like we do for any other word that's not specifically defined in Rule 4.

Rule Bopok - isn't he one of those Pakistani philosophers? Why would I care if he agrees or disagrees? :confused:

You got me.

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

No problem, glad to help. :D

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

When did it get that easy?

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.

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." :D

1) Kinda handily forgot about the words in red didn't you? You know--"during a ...throw-in"? The rules don't say anything about who's a defender at that time, and the rules also never state <b>when</b> a player becomes a defender. If the FED hadda thought that there were "defenders" during a throw-in, then why did they add those additional words instead of just leaving it at "defensive player"? I read that sentence as saying that there are NO defensive players during a throw-in, which blows your whole postulation all t'hell. Good try.:)

2) Your <b>opinion</b> only.....I disagree.

3) Your <b>opinion</b> only.....I disagree.

4) Your <b>opinion</b> only.......I disagree.

Btw, I also ain't gonna argue this one for too long. It's not really germane to the call and I don't know really of any cases off the top of my head where it is even relevant.

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?

Hold the phone on this one. After a made basket, the team that just scored can call a timeout before the new offensive team or player control gets the ball. So, for this brief period, you can call a timeout when there is no player or team control.

Fed. really makes this complicated when there is no TC on a throw-in, however, once the ball is placed at the disaposal of the thrower-in, the opponents can not be granted a timeout, even though your arguement is there is no team control, no offense, no defense on a throw-in.

These are all good points though JR. Continue on, I'll hang up now.

Let me get this straight.

If A1 has control of the ball for a throw-in, then B1 is NOT a defender? I wonder WTF he's doing then?

The single word "control" is defined in the rule book? Where can I find it?

Exactly! Where can I find the single word "control" in the <b>rule book</b> to back your statement that "A1 has <b>control</b> for a throw-in. You tell me.

TEAMS CANNOT CALL TIMEOUTS!!!!!

Any other rules you don't know? Oh wait - don't list them because there is only so much bandwidth in the universe.

As I said before, the definition doesn't appear in the rule book. Therefore, we use the defintion that exists in the real world, unless you know of some other place we can get a definition.

If I'm standing OOB and holding the ball, then I have control of the ball. It's not team control or player control but I am controlling the ball. Any 5th grader would know that.

I'm done.

Timeouts may be granted, by rule, when requested by the team whose player is either in control or has the ball for a throwin; or (and this is key) when the ball is dead. After the basket and before the throwin team secures the ball (and the 5 second count begins), the ball is dead, thus allowing either team to request timeout.

Mark, set away from the keyboard, put your hands up in the air. Just step away from the keyboard, it's going to be alright, I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow and we will get you a public defender when we get your a$$ behind bars and away from that keyboard.:D

Mark's point is simple. Only the officials can "call" a timeout. They do so only after the team "requests" it. Common usage doesn't differentiate between "request" and "call" when it comes a timeout, and it may seem like an exercise in silly semantics, but the rules make a distinction for a reason.

Are you sure the ball is dead? If the ball is dead, shouldn't the clock be stop? Not really trying to debate anything here, just adding food for thought to the discussion. I am surprised to learn there is no offense or defense on a throw-in. I'm not disagreeing with JR, I'm just surprised to learn.

Yes, the ball is dead. I don't have my rule book to quote, but it's under definitions, I believe. Any contact foul during this brief time should be ignored. If it can't be ignored, it is considered an intentional technical foul.
It's the dead ball period that allows the team that made the basket to legally request a timeout.

And there is no requirement for the clock to stop during a dead ball, just as there is no requirement for the clock to start during a live ball. Example, the ball is live during a throwin, even before the clock starts. The ball is live on a free throw, even before the clock starts.

Substitution rules also indicate that subs must be made during a dead ball while the clock is stopped. This is why players may sub after a made free throw but not after a made field goal.

Who is he defending against?

Can he obtain and maintain legal guarding position?

No

Can he be considered to be closely guarding A1?

No

So you'll now tell me that B1 is not *guarding* but he's a *defender*.

Where - except for the rules related to guarding opponents - is the concept of defender or defense explored in the rule book? Go ahead and read 7-5 and you'll see that not once is the word "defense" or "defender" or "offense" mentioned. Not once.You can't.

I suspect you know this already but player control cannot occur without team control. No team control = no control by anyone under the rules.

And (I suspect you know this already) under the rules there's no such thing as just plain contol.

btw M&M, I really prefer Valencias.

The ball becomes dead every time a basket is scored. The clock doesn't stop on made baskets.

You can't make a definitive statement that the clock is always stopped when the ball is dead. That's wrong, rules-wise.

Well, I didn't know that, and fifth grade was the happiest three years of my life.

And the reason is that an official can refuse a <b>request</b> for a TO.

So, is B1 still a defender after the throw-in pass is deflected? My original stance was that either team could secure control after a deflection and come down anywhere. The new case tells us that this is not true for team A. Now we know for certain that the throw-in exception does not apply. Does the
"defensive player" exception apply? If I understand correctly, Tony says it does and JR says it does not. Now what do we do?

As much fun as it would be to disagree with Jurassic :D, I must agree with him.

That list in parentheses is a list of the types of players who are on a team that is not in control. A defensive player clearly not in control but in a jump ball and a throwin neither team is in control....so all players are covered during those times. It is NOT suggesting that a anything about who a defender is.

During a throwin, the thrower has possession of the ball but not control.

I do agree that there is an offense and a defense during a throwin.

There is a definition of control....two of them in fact. Player control and team control. The thrower may have possession but not control.

Make popcorn. Watch the fur fly. Yell, "Hit 'im again!" occassionally. :D

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 Snaqwells
Timeouts may be granted, by rule, when requested by the team whose player is either in control or has the ball for a throwin; or (and this is key) when the ball is dead. After the basket and before the throwin team secures the ball (and the 5 second count begins), the ball is dead, thus allowing either team to request timeout.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Yep, absolutely sure. ;)

RULE 6
SECTION 7 DEAD BALL
The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 1 . . . A goal, as in 5-1, is made.

Just so that we don't lose sight of the crux of the debate in this thread, here are two plays in which an official needs to know if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" and thus would be granted "the defensive exception" to the backcourt violation.

1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

The crux of the debate on play #1 was settled when the new case play was issued. Play #2 was always straightforward.

The problems remains that you do <b>not</b> understand it correctly. The new case tells you that it's illegal for <b>both</b> teams. Tony is <b>not</b> saying that B1 is a defensive player with regards to the exception. Tony was and has been saying that the throw-in <b>ended</b> with the tipped ball, and the exception in 9-9-3 also ended when the throw-in ended. Therefore, when the throw-in ended, you had a loose ball without player or team control having been established. The first player to gain player control of the loose ball will now become an offensive player, and the exception does not count for offensive players. You and Nevada were arguing differently- from last November to the present. The new case play asserts that Tony was correct.

From the new case play--<i>"The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball."</i> That's all you have to know.

Tony and I were arguing whether there is an "offense" or "defense" <i>per se</i> <b>during</b> a throw-in.

What Tony and I(and others) were arguing was nothing but semantics, and those semantics are basically completely irrelevant to the correct call on the play being discussed.

Oooohhh...cool. I'm arguing semantics...

pssst...M&M...what's a semantic??

So if it was not pertaining to the defensive player exception in 9-9-3, what was the significance of whether there is a defense on the throw-in or not?

I can think of a coupla answers, but none of 'em would last.:D

Semantics. :D

There really isn't any significance. It's irrelevant to 9-9-3. That rule says that the exception <b>during</b> a throw-in applies to <b>every</b> player on the floor. The case play just further tells us that the exception ended when the throw-in ended, and only applies to the first player touching the ball on the throw-in anyway.

Make sense now?

I hate to say this, but I actually think that the rule you quoted argues against your position. If the opponent of the inbounder is considered a defender by the rules, then why is "a player from the team not in control" described as a defensive player or a player during a jump ball or a player during a throw-in? If an opponent of the inbounder were a defender, you wouldn't need both "defensive player" and "during a throw-in" in the description.

You'd still need "during a throw-in" to allow for the "offensive" team to have the exception.

Semantics is the theory of meanings.

What's most unfortunate here is that some of you seem anti-semantic. :D

P.S. Why are you guys whispering?

I thought it was the meaning of theories. :confused:

Oh? I thought it had sumthin' to do with male bodily fluids.

Anti-semantic is the theory of being mean.

Oh, great, now Padgett will post images. :eek:

Sure, with that kind of encouragement.

Nah - too easy. BTW - next time someone at the grocery store, bank or restaurant tritely asks you how you are today, reply "misanthropic". :p

Gotta go now. Gotta expunge some bodily fluid.

I know - TMI. Sorry.

Hmm, have we met? Seems you already know me. :p

Oh, and stop telling me what to do.

Beer?

Beer is a temporary male bodily fluid. :p

For some, maybe.

After a long and thoughtful consideration, I have decided that since there is no published definition of what a "defensive player" is, each of us must make up his/her own mind and proceed accordingly. Forget team control for a minute.
On a throw-in, team A has the ball, therefore they are offense. So, conversely, team B must be defense. The way I see it, they will continue to be defense on this play until they gain control of the ball or until a shot goes up. Therefore, if B2 leaps from FC, grabs the ball and lands in BC, I believe I will continue to consider this a legal play until a casebook play comes out which states something different.

And I certainly can believe that you will call it that way too.

A casebook play has already came out that said something different. You just simply fail to understand it. Casebook play 9.9.1SitD says <i>"The <b>exception</b> granted during the throw-in ends when the throw-in ends <b>and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball</b>".</i>

If you want to apply the exception to a player that gets the ball <b>AFTER</b> the initial touch was made by <b>another</b> player, hey, go for it. :rolleyes:

The throw-in exception is for the offense, Team A. This case play deals with Team A. Team B, the defensive team, has its own exception, which is in effect all the time, not just on a throw-in.

That is my take. I don't see anything in the book which disproves it.

RIF. The case play that I just cited disproves it.

It doesn't matter who is on offense or defense. The exception on 9-9-3 ended on the first touch. No exception---->violation no matter which player on the floor does it.

Do what you gotta do. Waste of time arguing it any further. If you won't believe the case book, you obviously won't believe anyone on here either.

May I make a suggestion? Find yourself a qualified rules interpreter somewhere in your state and ask him. That might save you a little embarrassment down the road.

Jurassic, while you could be right the case play you cited doesn't disprove the play at all. The case only addresses when the throwin exception ends. It doesn't address when the defensive player's exception ends or who a defensive player is. That's the exception he's applying. Of course, that's an entirely different question than claiming that it is legal under the throwin excpetion.

The only thing the case play proves is that the throw-in exception ends on the first touch for the offense.

For the case play to settle this issue one way or the other it would have to have another situation where a B player is the first to gain control and comes down in the BC.

The only other way I can think of that this play could be settled is with some information about what a defensive player is. Apparently you think that no team control= no offense no defense. That is a theory but I see no rule or case which backs it up. My theory is that since A has the ball on the throw-in B must be defense.

Is there any use of the term "defensive player" anywhere in any of the books other than in 9-9-3?

I agree, Camron. It seems to me that Jurassic is the one who doesn't understand the point which is being debated here. :(

Tony has always maintained that there are THREE distinct exceptions to the backcourt rule. They are the three which were enumerated as such in the old text before the rule was rewritten.

He has also maintained that the when the NFHS reworded the rule, they did not intend to alter its meaning or application. I argued last season that the NFHS unintentionally altered the rule with the editorial rewrite creating a number of new situations which were exempt from backcourt violations, and thus we had to alter our application of it. Due to the new case play that seems to have been incorrect while Tony\'s position has now been supported by the new case play.

Therefore, if we are to understand that there are still three ways in which a player may be granted an exception to committing a backcourt violation, and it doesn\'t matter under which exception he qualifies, we have to check for all three of them before calling a violation.

All of us agree that the throw-in has ended and thus the exception granted to any player for violating after catching the ball "during a throw-in" clearly does not apply. All of us also agree that this action does not take place "during a jump ball" and so this exception can\'t apply. However, it is unclear if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" during this scenario and thus granted an exception for that. JR is failing to see that argument. He seems to be lumping all of the exceptions into one big exception due to the rewrite, when, if I understand Tony and the NFHS correctly, he should instead be considering them separately.