9-9-2?

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Okay, having once again studied all previous threads on this topic, would this be a correct statement?:

"Since 9-9-1 was revised in order to accomodate the new rule stipulating team control during a throw-in ("The change primarily affects how foul penalties will be administered"), the Casebook situation 9.9.1.C.a trumps the unfortunate phraseology of the new 9-9-1 when, say, backcourt A1's pass touches frontcourt A2 (no player control) and goes back to backcourt where A1 resumes control; this a backcourt violation."

Is that a correct statement for that sort of backcourt-to-frontcourt-to-backcourt situation?

9.9.1C in the 2010-2011 case book reads, "the ball was in control of Team A." in the 2011-2012 case book it reads "the ball was in control of A1 and Team A."

I don't know what to make of that. If they mean the ball was but no longer is in control of A1, then the ball could not have been in player and team control in the frontcourt. If they mean the ball was and still is in control of A1 during the pass, . . . I'm going to be really confused.

The use of the word "While" in 9-9-2 makes that whole rule seem impossible.

Right now, I am going with Freddy's assessment that case book trumps poorly written rule book.

My association has been very slow to discuss this. I hope we get it figured out before season starts.

[Toren]

[QUOTE=Freddy;795648]Rule 9-9-2: "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."

The first few times I read the rule it seemed to give me issues. The rule is worded strangely, but it breaks down fairly simply...I think.

So if player A1 in the backcourt with player control, throws a pass to A2, in the front court. And A2 doesn't see the ball coming and it hits off his leg. Now we have team control in the front court. The ball bounces into the backcourt and A3 retrieves it, backcourt violation.

We do not need player and team control in the frontcourt. The rule says we need player and team control in the backcourt.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Toren

We do not need player and team control in the frontcourt. The rule says we need player and team control in the backcourt.

9-9-2 does say "While in player and team control in its backcourt". The play you described happens after being in player and team control in its backcourt but not while.

The only thing I can come up with is if a A1 stopped dribbling and held the ball the ball near the division line while still in his backcourt, then touched the ball to the floor or an official in the frontcourt while his feet remained in the backcourt. Even then I'm feeling confused.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

9-9-2 does say "While in player and team control in its backcourt". The play you described happens after being in player and team control in its backcourt but not while.

The only thing I can come up with is if a A1 stopped dribbling and held the ball the ball near the division line while still in his backcourt, then touched the ball to the floor or an official in the frontcourt while his feet remained in the backcourt. Even then I'm feeling confused.

I think you're reading too much into the rule (and that's partly cause the rule is poorly worded). We're still going to judge backcourt plays as we always have. The portion about player control was added to try and account for the fact that some plays that were never backcourt violations during and immediately after the throw-in ends, would be violations now if they didn't add the bit about player control.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

We're still going to judge backcourt plays as we always have.

That's my plan. But I love trying to figure out what they (NFHS) were thinking when they created the new wording. It is hard for me to believe they just didn't know the situation they were creating.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

That's my plan. But I love trying to figure out what they (NFHS) were thinking when they created the new wording. It is hard for me to believe they just didn't know the situation they were creating.

Sometimes, it's best not to try and think about how the powers that be for the NF come up with it's rules and interpretations. We know that NF's intent and purpose of the rule is to not shoot free throws when the throw-in team commits a foul. Heck, the majority of us are trying to figure out how a backcourt interpretation from a couple of years back that makes little sense.

What I'm guessing will happen is we'll see an editorial change or two over the next couple of years, until the get the wording clear.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Sometimes, it's best not to try and think about how the powers that be for the NF come up with it's rules and interpretations. We know that NF's intent and purpose of the rule is to not shoot free throws when the throw-in team commits a foul. Heck, the majority of us are trying to figure out how a backcourt interpretation from a couple of years back that makes little sense.

What I'm guessing will happen is we'll see an editorial change or two over the next couple of years, until the get the wording clear.

However, in 10 or so years, there will be an editor that issues a ruling that says all those things should have been backcourt violations all along and we were just misapplying the rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, in 10 or so years, there will be an editor that issues a ruling that says all those things should have been backcourt violations all along and we were just misapplying the rule rule.

Yup