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.