Another problem with the new backcourt rule?

[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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

This is the real source of the problem - unless and until the rule is changed appropriately there will be confusion and more of it each year.

Scrappy got it right above. It's totally amateur hour.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

This is the real source of the problem - unless and until the rule is changed appropriately there will be confusion and more of it each year.

Scrappy got it right above. It's totally amateur hour.

And it's an easy fix.

Subsequent a throw-in, a backcourt violation cannot occur and a 10-second backcourt count cannot begin until or unless player control has been established.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And it's an easy fix.

Subsequent a throw-in, a backcourt violation cannot occur and a 10-second backcourt count cannot begin until or unless player control has been established.

And that's the worst part of this: not only is your solution an example of a simple fix, but there were multiple other avenues to get the end result they desired without creating such a ridiculous ongoing issue.