Case Book 9-9-1 Sit. D
 

Don't know if anyone remembers (or cares) but we had a lengthy discussion last March regarding this play and even got an explanation from Struckoff about this. As a result we got a new definition of when a throw-in ends it clarified some of it (see newly added 9-9-1D). Notice her interpretation of the casebook play, exactly as it was written last year. It's the opposite of what the case book says this year.


Struckoff Answer last year: No violation, play on. The provision in 9-9-3 permits the play.
Team control is established when A2 gains possession and lands in the
backcourt.

Casebook this year - Backcourt violation on A. Throw-in ends on touch 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.

Question for me is what if the exact same thing happens but by B2?

(Struckoff's answer last year was it was "not" a violation....Does the new rule now make it a violation on B2 as well or is the defense given special consideration as in rule 9-9-3 or since the throw-in is now over on the "legal touch" is it a violation?

Looking at the text, I would say that it also applies to B2 since the only exception is granted to the player who initially touch the ball.

Violation!

That's what I think as well and hope is the consensus...I do remember this being a long, drawn-out topic last year and maybe the new "end of throw-in rule" will clear this up.

It is nice to see that they acted on it at the Fed and took some of our concerns to heart and have appeared to address them.

Did she specifically say it was "not" a violation, specifically to that sitch? Or are you extrapolating?

Agreed :)

Exact wording was -

"same as #1" which stated - I'm sure meaning you should insert B2 for A2, but meaning there was no violation....which I believe should change now based on the fact that a throw in ends on a legal touching.

I'll post last year's thread as soon as I find it....

Here it is--

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...322#post394322

http://nfhs.org/web/2007/10/200708_b...s_interpr.aspx

See situation #7.

Thanks so much, should be a lot shorter thread this time around and easier to understand.

Why isn't this covered by the exception allowing the defending team to make a defensive play which would otherwise result in a backcourt violation?

That's the purpuse of the ruling - the exception would apply only to B1, because the exception only applies during a throw-in. Since B1 tipped it, the throw-in is over, and thus, the throw-in exception is over.

It should be, but the NFHS is a bit screwy. They are having some issues defining what exactly constitutes a defensive player.

Note:
M&M, you are talking about the wrong exception. You answered for the "during a throw-in" exception, while rfp was inquiring about the "defensive player" exception. Apples to oranges. :D

Nope, <b>they</b> aren't. <b>You</b> are.:D

That may be true too. :)