Working with a Veteran

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I just came from our IAABO board's fall conference, and one of the things mentioned was a change in interpretation on this very play. Long story short, it's not a violation. A few of us at the meeting expressed pleasure about the change, as last year's didn't make sense to us.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

I'm so confused. Are we talking about this:

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

I was wondering the same thing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was wondering the same thing.

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, of which there are many. Sometimes we, in IAABO, can be real mavericks. At the next IAABO spring meeting, we'll be able to see Russia from our hotel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Interesting. IAABO is recognized as the state governing body in a few states. As such, they can't make rules, but they can decide what rules they might comply with or modify. I'm wondering whether they consider this a non-compliance or a modification. Or maybe just as a completely wrong interpretation that was never backed by rule and should never had been issued in the first place, as most of us viewed it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, or which there are many. Sometimes we, in IAABO, can be real mavericks. At the next IAABO spring meeting, we'll be able to see Russia from our hotel.

So it's going to be held at Tina Fey's house? Or in Moscow?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, or which there are many.

If IAABO alone issued it, it most definitely will not apply to any non-IAABO associations, areas, states, etc.

What we need to know is whether IAABO issued it or got it from a legitimate NFHS source.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Interesting. IAABO is recognized as the state governing body in a few states. As such, they can't make rules, but they can decide what rules they might comply with or modify. I'm wondering whether they consider this a non-compliance or a modification. Or maybe just as a completely wrong interpretation that was never backed by rule and should never had been issued in the first place, as most of us viewed it.

It's not exactly our governing body, but all our certifications are through IAABO, and we follow IAABO mechanics, and our rule book/case book has a big IAABO stamp on it.

Since I never seem to be able to remember this particular interp on the court, the idea of IAABO reversing it within their jurisdiction is intriguing, but nothing more.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's not exactly our governing body, but all our certifications are through IAABO, and we follow IAABO mechanics, and our rule book/case book has a big IAABO stamp on it.

Since I never seem to be able to remember this particular interp on the court, the idea of IAABO reversing it within their jurisdiction is intriguing, but nothing more.

IAABO is recognized as the governing body in some states in the north-east. It was the the governing body in Georgia for a cup of coffee too iirc, but they got tossed there 2/3 years ago. What is intriguing is whether they're following the lead from the FED and it'll come down to the rest of us, or whether they issued the ruling on their own and it only applies to IAABO jurisdictions.

I know just the person to ask.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

IAABO jurisdictions. I know just the person to ask.

ChuckElias doesn't live here anymore.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

ChuckElias doesn't live here anymore.

But he reads here a lot.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

ChuckElias doesn't live here anymore.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

But he reads here a lot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

But he reads here a lot.

If this was Facebook, I would say hit the "like" button.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm so confused. Are we talking about this:

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

I think according to the NFHS "interpretation" this is still a backcourt violation...not that it's correct according to that rule book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

Methinks that unless there was something definitive issued from the NFHS last year that none of us are aware of, your board's interpreter was wrong in making the assumption that the interpretation had changed(unfortunately). We all pretty-much agree that it should be a legal play by rule, but until the FED withdraws that stoopid interpretation, we're either still stuck with it or are ignoring it.