Another backcourt violation question

[Zoochy]

Case book. Page 75. 9.9.1 Situation D.
Ask tjones1 for the past interps. 2007-2008

SITUATION 7: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1's deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/ control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

SITUATION 8: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's backcourt (Team B's frontcourt). A1's throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: No violation, legal play. It doesn't matter if one foot lands before the other provided it is a "normal landing." Since there was no deflection, the throw-in had not ended. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

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. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and 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 exceptions of 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)

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Case book. Page 75. 9.9.1 Situation D.

This case play is not the same as it was last year, which is the book I was looking in.

Seems to me the NFHS needs to define what a defensive player is, if they plan on changing rulings based on whether or not a player is on offense or defense. The ball being tipped does not changed the fact that B1 was considered to be a defender when the ball was given to thrower A1. If this is a BC violation, then the defensive player exception needs to be removed completely from the rule.

I'm still with Camron on this one.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm sorry, but these are stupid case plays. To not consider B defenders is moronic, IMO.

[Adam]

I'll re-post it:

I'm sorry, but these are stupid case plays. To not consider B defenders is moronic, IMO.

[Zoochy]

Well... you have a choice. Enforce the ruling as per the interp, or disregard the rule and enforce the play the way you want. Who is going to know?
Who was the member that submitted the plays to NFHS?
Maybe we can get the interp changed to read the exception is for the 1st player (Team A member or Team B member) that securs control of the ball. Thus the deflection only directs the clock to start.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Well... you have a choice. Enforce the ruling as per the interp, or disregard the rule and enforce the play the way you want. Who is going to know?
Who was the member that submitted the plays to NFHS?
Maybe we can get the interp changed to read the exception is for the 1st player (Team A member or Team B member) that securs control of the ball. Thus the deflection only directs the clock to start.

As BktBallRef points out, the exception is already in the rule for a defensive player. How is B1, during a throwin for A, not a defensive player? The interp doesn't really fit the rule. So some of us have to choose between enforcing the rule as we read it or enforcing it based on the interp.

And before we get all that excited about the interp, let's remember the other backcourt interp that we all so love and admire.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

......... let's remember the other backcourt interp that we all so love and admire.

Can't. We all said FORGET IT! (or various versions thereof)

[Indianaref]

I would like to see a change to "Team Contol" during a throw-in. It would make this play and others easier.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'll re-post it:

I'm sorry, but these are stupid case plays. To not consider B defenders is moronic, IMO.

Sure, you can repost it, but I bet you get Tony's kowtows only once.