The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 12:44pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
9-9-2?

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."

I've been trying to get my head around possible situations prohibited by this rule. The casebook has none to clarify. Other than "the backcourt player's pass hitting the leg of an official in the frontcourt then going back..." (previous thread's sitch), can you suggest any other possible situation?
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call

Last edited by Freddy; Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 12:55pm.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 12:55pm
I miss being on the floor
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hartford, WI
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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."

I've been trying to get my head around possible situations prohibited by this rule. The casebook has none to clarify. Can you suggest one or some?
A1 receives the inbounds pass to begin a quarter. He catches the ball standing just a couple of feet from the division line. The defense has set up below the top of the key.

To start his dribble, he tosses the ball forward, with backspin on it, so that the ball hits the floor in the frontcourt, spins back to the backcourt, and he continues dribbling.

That is of course, if you consider this move a fumble and not a pass to himself.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 12:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffler3492 View Post
To start his dribble, he tosses the ball forward, with backspin on it, so that the ball hits the floor in the frontcourt, spins back to the backcourt, and he continues dribbling.
That's a dribble -- so it's legal.

You could have a pass from (near) one side of the court to (near) the other that bounces in the FC and is released by and caught by players in the BC.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:06pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffler3492 View Post

That is of course, if you consider this move a fumble and not a pass to himself.
It's impossible to pass the ball to oneself.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:20pm
I miss being on the floor
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hartford, WI
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer View Post
It's impossible to pass the ball to oneself.
You know what I mean
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:22pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffler3492 View Post
You know what I mean
To be fair I would not know what you are talking about as many people say this as an explanation as a violation.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:28pm
I miss being on the floor
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hartford, WI
Posts: 917
Oh fine, don't have my books to get the exact rule reference...but A1 can't recover his own pass, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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."

I've been trying to get my head around possible situations prohibited by this rule. The casebook has none to clarify. Other than "the backcourt player's pass hitting the leg of an official in the frontcourt then going back..." (previous thread's sitch), can you suggest any other possible situation?
A1 in the backcourt passes and the ball hits an official inbounds in the front court. The ball bounces back into backcourt and is first touched by a Team A player.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 03:15pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
Head Might Be Starting to Get Around It

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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."

I've been trying to get my head around possible situations prohibited by this rule. The casebook has none to clarify. Other than "the backcourt player's pass hitting the leg of an official in the frontcourt then going back..." (previous thread's sitch), can you suggest any other possible situation?
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?
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call

Last edited by Freddy; Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:28pm. Reason: Clarifying the Unclarifiable
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 569
This just keeps getting better . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 736
[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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toren View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:34pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch85 View Post
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.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:50pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch85 View Post
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.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1