NEW NFHS backcourt violation rule

[Nevadaref]

The NFHS has changed the definition of a backcourt violation in the 2011-12 rules book. Unfortunately, this change has NOT been announced as either a rule change or an editorial change!

Previous wording (2010-11 season):
Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Art. 2... While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.

Art. 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.

NEW 2011-12 text:
Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Art. 2... While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.

Art. 3... During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player 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.



Obviously the change is an attempt to mesh the backcourt rule with the new rule for team control during a throw-in. However, I believe that the NFHS didn't do this properly and actually made a significant change in way the backcourt rule works. This is more than just a wording change for editorial purposes in my opinion.

Here is the play which I believe has been altered.
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He throws a pass to A2 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt. The ball caroms off A2's knee and returns to the backcourt where A1 retrieves it.

According to article 1 from 2010-11 this would be a backcourt violation. However, since there was no player control in the frontcourt by A2, only team control by team A, according to the new wording for article 1 of 2011-12 there would not be a violation.

Note that this play is not covered by article 2 either as a player does touch the ball in the frontcourt. The problem is that the player in the frontcourt never gains control and the new wording clearly requires both player and team control in the frontcourt.

I have put the changes to the text from the previous season in red.

[bob jenkins]

Well, I like the change to Art 3.

I agree that the changed wording changes the play you describe.

[tref]

Nice pick up Nevada! Why didn't they just copy the NCAA wording, since we're changing to an NCAA ruling on throw-ins?
Wouldn't your play be ruled correct by the NCAA wording?

9-12
Section 12. Ball in Back Court
Art. 1. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court
(with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball
came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and
the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court.

Art. 2. A player who is the first to secure control of the ball in the front
court after a jump ball or a throw-in while both feet are off the playing court
shall not be permitted to cause the ball to go into the back court, except as
permitted in Rule 4-3.8.


4-3
Art. 8. After a jump ball or during a throw-in, the player in his/her front
court, who makes the initial touch on the ball while both feet are off the
playing court, may be the first to secure control of the ball and land with one
or both feet in the back court. It makes no difference if the first foot down
was in the front court or back court.

[Scrapper1]

I tried to tell you not to mess with team control. But did anybody listen? Noooooooooooo.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here is the play which I believe has been altered.
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He throws a pass to A2 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt. The ball caroms off A2's knee and returns to the backcourt where A1 retrieves it.

According to article 1 from 2010-11 this would be a backcourt violation. However, since there was no player control in the frontcourt by A2, only team control by team A, according to the new wording for article 1 of 2011-12 there would not be a violation.

Note that this play is not covered by article 2 either as a player does touch the ball in the frontcourt. The problem is that the player in the frontcourt never gains control and the new wording clearly requires both player and team control in the frontcourt.[/COLOR][/B]

The case book still has this as a violation, even though the case ruling doesn't match the rule wording.

*9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to
the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball
and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In
(a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from
A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to
touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was
not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second
count.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS has changed the definition of a backcourt violation in the 2011-12 rules book. Unfortunately, this change has NOT been announced as either a rule change or an editorial change!

...

NEW 2011-12 text:
Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

...

Here is the play which I believe has been altered.
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He throws a pass to A2 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt. The ball caroms off A2's knee and returns to the backcourt where A1 retrieves it.

According to article 1 from 2010-11 this would be a backcourt violation. However, since there was no player control in the frontcourt by A2, only team control by team A, according to the new wording for article 1 of 2011-12 there would not be a violation.

...

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The case book still has this as a violation, even though the case ruling doesn't match the rule wording.

*9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to
the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball
and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In
(a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from
A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to
touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was
not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second
count.

Given the case play, I'd conclude that they just messed up the grammar in the rule (again)....that they never intended to change the result of this play.

Here is what they probably meant...

A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in player and team control and has been in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

(Blue words added by me)

[tref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I tried to tell you not to mess with team control. But did anybody listen? Noooooooooooo.

You dont support identical penalties for offensive fouls whether the ball is in or out of bounds?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

You dont support identical penalties for offensive fouls whether the ball is in or out of bounds?

That's not what he said. There are other ways of achieving that result than by changing the definition of Team Control.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The case book still has this as a violation, even though the case ruling doesn't match the rule wording.

*9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to
the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball
and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In
(a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from
A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to
touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was
not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second
count.

I thought of that Case Book play and figured that it wouldn't change. I also believe that it was NOT the intent of the NFHS to alter the rulings for backcourt violations. I am merely pointing out that with the new wording of the rule that is what they unfortunately did. We must now await further clarification.

[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.

[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?