Backcourt Violation Play

[tref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

That's what APG's saying, and what is probably, I guess, intended here, but the written rule contradicts the case 9.9.1.c. 9-9-1 does not mention throw-ins, so by my logic, it should apply to all backcourt situations - not just throw-ins.

By my logic, if you're going to add NCAA rule(s) to the HS game simply copy & paste their rule(s) word for word.
The Federation messed up here & thats why they sent the clarification out that stated the rule change is only related to not shooting FTs when the offensive team fouls.

[HawkeyeCubP]

So once again, the NFHS rule is written worse than the NCAA book. Are they afraid to copy the rule wording when making rules identical, for fear of copyright infringement? I don't live in an NFHS state anymore. Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

(Thanks APG)

[tref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

You're IAABO correct? Board 4?
This is what was sent to me by our State Rules Interpreter (DS)


Directly from the NFHS 2011-12 Rule change powerpoint regarding the team control during the throwin change: Only team-control fouls occurring during a throw-in were affected by this change.The change does NOT affect any of the following rules:
• Three seconds in the lane
• Traveling/Dribbling
• Backcourt
• Alternating-possession throw-in rules

Minor edits occurred to some of these rules for clarification.

I dont believe they admit guilt, they just clarify

[APG]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

So once again, the NFHS rule is written worse than the NCAA book. Are they afraid to copy the rule wording when making rules identical, for fear of copyright infringement? I don't live in an NFHS state anymore. Has an NFHS interp been sent out specifically on that, admitting they worded it poorly?

(Thanks APG)

There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Weird. In my mind, this conflicts with the addition of "player" into 9-9-1.

Of course it does. But, as has been explained here (and elsewhere) approximately 87 times, it doesn't mean what it says. The play is a BC violation.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Not true. Backcourt rules changed quite a bit, causing at least one major discrepancy.

How so? What about a backcourt violation changed?

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

This is what I was talking about.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There was an official NFHS powerpoint that mentioned that team control didn't affect anything except fouls by the throw-in team...and that we'd called 3 seconds, backcourt violations and counts the same...besides that and the official interpretations, NFHS hasn't acknowledged anything in regard to the wording of the rule.

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is what I was talking about.

Things that make you go hmmmm...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

?
9-9-1 doesn't mention throw-ins.

Easy fix to the poor wording:

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.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The first two times he touched the ball, it was a fumble. The third was a dribble.

One can't fumble the ball until player control has been established. What happened in the video would be best described as a muff or bobble.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by zm1283

How so? What about a backcourt violation changed?

Read 9-9-1 from last year and this year. Then look at the case plays for 9.9.1. This has been pointed out numerous times on the forum. They changed the backcourt rule so that it now contradicts a case play, but they want us to rule the way the case play says.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

(Sorry, but don't know how to get the "strike-through" font.)

TIP: around the text, put < STRIKE> and < /STRIKE> (minus the spaces inside the braces that I put in to make it show)

to get and

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Cobra

One can't fumble the ball until player control has been established. What happened in the video would be best described as a muff or bobble.

Good point. And, I agree, the words matter.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

TIP: around the text, put < STRIKE> and < /STRIKE> (minus the spaces inside the braces that I put in to make it show)

to get and

< s > < /s > Also works

Snaqs is an instigator agitator.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

< s > < /s > Also works

Snaqs is an instigator agitator.

Hey, what did I do? never mind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Easy fix to the poor wording:

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.

And as I've mentioned in other posts the same wording needs to be added to the 10-second backcourt rule concerning when the count should start after a throw-in.

Meaning if a throw-in is tipped/muffed in/into the backcourt the 10-second count doesn't start until player control is established.

Unless of course the 10-second count should start immediately when the ball gains backcourt status after a throw-in. No one has ever really clearly answered to me what the rulemakers intent is concerning starting the 10-second count after a throw-in. Even asked Al Battista once in camp and he kinded hemmed and hawwed an answer and couldn't give me a clear rules reference, a definite rarity for him.