Final Word on 9-9-1 vs 9.9.1C(a)
 

I know we may have been through this before, but can you clarify for me again the correct interpretation for this apparent conundrum? (I searched but couldn't find the thread from before)...

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

9.9.1C(a): A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt, A2 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: It is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court.

If, in the casebook sitch, "touches the ball" suggests no player control established in the frontcourt, both cannot be correct, can they? Please reiterate for me whether we're following the Rulebook or the Casebook on this one.

We are ruling backcourt violations the EXACT same way as we always have. The player control portion of the rule was a poorly written attempt to try and make throw-in plays from last year legal.

In this case, you would adjudicate the play as written in the case book.

Ok
 

Thanx!

I believe you're talking about 9-9-1 and 9.9.1(c).

Correct. Didn't know I could edit the thread title like I just did, but discovered how. Your correction helped me learn something.

Really Difficult Without A Flux Capacitor ...
 

Which could make it really difficult for a rookie official.

The Casebook Play is "the fly in the ointment". Why? Because the Casebook Ruling cannot be defended by rule. Tony, Daryl (H. Long) and I noticed this over a month ago. The NFHS Basektball Rules Committee screwed up and just saying the sky is green when it really is blue does not make it so.

MTD, Sr.