Another problem with the new backcourt rule?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

And oh, by the way, since when is our rulebook superseded by a freakin' 20 minute powerpoint presentation?!?!?!?

When that power point comes directly from the NFHS...look we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it. At least we have clarification on how the rules is supposed to be properly applied. And more than likely, we'll get an editorial change or two in the next couple of years that will fix any discrepancies in the written rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

When that power point comes directly from the NFHS...look we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it. At least we have clarification on how the rules is supposed to be properly applied. And more than likely, we'll get an editorial change or two in the next couple of years that will fix any discrepancies in the written rule.

Next couple of years? How about in the next couple of weeks they put out some interps with explanations so that we can at least have something in writing other than "it only affects foul calls".

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Next couple of years? How about in the next couple of weeks they put out some interps with explanations so that we can at least have something in writing other than "it only affects foul calls".

The 2011-2012 NFHS basketball interpretations weren't enough for you?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

we get it. You don't like how they worded the new rule change. Nothing you can do about it.

It's not the wording that has me all worked up. Everybody knows that the wording is terrible. And everybody knows how we're supposed to call it. And yes, I keep saying "I tried to tell you . . ." but that's mostly a joke at this point.

What really has me twisted up is the bush league way the whole change and its "interpretation" has been handled; or more precisely, mishandled. It's like they filled a room with people who have never even read a rulebook. And then when they figured out -- way too late -- that they screwed the pooch, their solution is to say "ignore the rule and just call it this way". That is horrifyingly amateurish and, in my opinion, downright insulting to officials who are trying to be professional and who have spent literally years studying the books.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It's not the wording that has me all worked up. Everybody knows that the wording is terrible. And everybody knows how we're supposed to call it. And yes, I keep saying "I tried to tell you . . ." but that's mostly a joke at this point.

What really has me twisted up is the bush league way the whole change and its "interpretation" has been handled; or more precisely, mishandled. It's like they filled a room with people who have never even read a rulebook. And then when they figured out -- way too late -- that they screwed the pooch, their solution is to say "ignore the rule and just call it this way". That is horrifyingly amateurish and, in my opinion, downright insulting to officials who are trying to be professional and who have spent literally years studying the books.

Agreed. For example, I can't believe they changed a basketball fundamental, and didn't even note it in the book.

[Welpe]

Scrappy, just be thankful you don't officiate under NCAA Football rules. My head spins like a top trying to keep up with the latest interpretations and memos.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed. For example, I can't believe they changed a basketball fundamental, and didn't even note it in the book.

Thanks. After I typed my last post, I re-read it and thought it might be a little melodramatic. Even if you only sort of agree, it makes me feel like I'm not totally off-base.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I am really tired of "call it how we want, forget about the actual rule".


1) That's an incredibly stupid rationale for a rule change.

2) If they're really committed to such an incredibly stupid rationale, they should at least write the rule to reflect it.

3) I tried to tell people not to mess with the definition of team control. But did anybody listen? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

You're preaching to the choir Brother Scrapper.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Last year: AP throw-in. (The throw-in has ended with the legal touch by B1 and there's no team control. So the POI is an AP throw-in.)

This year: Throw-in to Team A, since the stoppage occurred while Team A had control.

Are you saying that we're supposed to use the arrow this year?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes....still use the arrow. The team control that exists on the throw in is only team control for the purposes of fouls....nothing else. Full team control for all other situations doesn't begin until there is player control inbounds.

Yep, as Camron says the new rule change has now been stated to only impact FOULS. The AP throw-in was listed as an item that it does not change in the powerpoint.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The 2011-2012 NFHS basketball interpretations weren't enough for you?

None of which talk about a pass that is touched inbounds by A2 who is standing in the backcourt and then ball bounces in the backcourt. Since "technically" Team A has continous control and A2 is "inbounds" and "in the backcourt".

So to cover this play, instead of going by the rule book we go by that catch all--"it only affects foul calls"

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

None of which talk about a pass that is touched inbounds by A2 who is standing in the backcourt and then ball bounces in the backcourt. Since "technically" Team A has continous control and A2 is "inbounds" and "in the backcourt".

So to cover this play, instead of going by the rule book we go by that catch-all--"it only affects foul calls"

I guess I don't see your confusion.

[deecee]

I don't see all the confusion over this (and the IF's on contact with a thrower in).

Yeah it might contradict a rule here and there, and it might be different than a definition here and there. But who cares? It's stated in black and white on what to do in these situations. How much more clarity can you ask for? If A happens apply punishment #1...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I guess I don't see your confusion.

I'm not confused. But there are folks who didn't ref last year who will be ref'ing this year. And when they read the rulebook they are going come up with rule book based interpretations of certain plays such as the play we are talking about (throw-in, team control, touched inbounds by Team A, bouncing in back court). But then they are going to be told they are wrong and to call it like it has always been called. Well, withiout specific case plays and interps how do they know how it used to be called?

Situation 3 in the interps is not the same play. It emphasizes continous control but "techincally not inbounds" and "technically not in the backcourt" but our play does have continous control and is "techinically inbounds" and "technically in the backcourt".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't see all the confusion over this (and the IF's on contact with a thrower in).

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not confused. But there are folks who didn't ref last year who will be ref'ing this year. And when they read the rulebook they are going come up with rule book based interpretations of certain plays such as the play we are talking about.

And the people the year after that and the year after that....all of whom will not have the benefit of a PowerPoint presentation that will likely never be incorporated into the book...or at least not cleanly.

[BillyMac]

... Is that we all saw it coming from a mile away. Why didn't the NFHS see this as a problem? What a bunch of knuckleheads.