NEW NFHS backcourt violation rule

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It would seem that 9-9-1 is the only real issue. I can't think of an example that would violate the change in articles 2 & 3.

A1 has the ball in his frontcourt. He throws a pass towards A2 which is deflected away by B1. The ball enters the backcourt. A2 and B1 race for it. A2 bats the ball. The ball returns to the frontcourt and strikes the leg of an official. The ball now rebounds to the backcourt where A1 picks it up.

Old Rule: Backcourt violation under article 2 as Team A had team control the entire time.

New Rule: Likely not a violation. There was both player and team control in the frontcourt, but then Team B caused the ball to enter the backcourt. Team A now caused the ball to re-enter the frontcourt where it did not touch a player and player control was not re-established there. The ball subsequently returned to the backcourt and was first touched by Team A.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A1 has the ball in his frontcourt. He throws a pass towards A2 which is deflected away by B1. The ball enters the backcourt. A2 and B1 race for it. A2 bats the ball. The ball returns to the frontcourt and strikes the leg of an official. The ball now rebounds to the backcourt where A1 picks it up.

Old Rule: Backcourt violation under article 2 as Team A had team control the entire time.

New Rule: Likely not a violation. There was both player and team control in the frontcourt, but then Team B caused the ball to enter the backcourt. Team A now caused the ball to re-enter the frontcourt where it did not touch a player and player control was not re-established there. The ball subsequently returned to the backcourt and was first touched by Team A.

9-9-2 says "While in player and team control in its backcourt,... There's no player control in the BC in your play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

9-9-2 says "While in player and team control in its backcourt,... There's no player control in the BC in your play.

True. So you agree that I've contructed a play which would have been a violation under the old rule, but is not under the new wording?

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True. So you agree that I've contructed a play which would have been a violation under the old rule, but is not under the new wording?

If you can keep people from saying that the bat was a dribble..yes.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If you can keep people from saying that the bat was a dribble..yes.

Why would "people" say that?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why would "people" say that?

Possibly because the definition of dribble includes batting the ball????

If the bat is controlled and is to the floor, it is, by definition, a dribble. And the ball, even though it bounced in the frontcourt off of the official, is not technically in the frontcourt since it is now "during a dribble".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Possibly because the definition of dribble includes batting the ball????

If the bat is controlled and is to the floor, it is, by definition, a dribble. And the ball, even though it bounced in the frontcourt off of the official, is not technically in the frontcourt since it is now "during a dribble".

It could be a pass as a pass may also be made by batting the ball.

Also, you are certainly aware that the 3-points rule doesn't apply to an interrupted dribble. So if the official were to deem that to be the case, then the ball would attain FC status.