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 Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:51pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
9.9.1 case book

A1 is dribbling in his/her back court and throws a pass to the front court. While standing in A's frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's back court. A2 recovers in the back court.

Ruling: In (a), 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 the front court and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play, and A is entitled to a new 10 second count.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 9
I've read the case book and seen that play in the case book. Other than poorly written rules, how is the absence of PC by A2 justified in the presence of 9.9.1 indicating the required presence of PC?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:10pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff.mayfield View Post
I've read the case book and seen that play in the case book. Other than poorly written rules, how is the absence of PC by A2 justified in the presence of 9.9.1 indicating the required presence of PC?
Last year, the NFHS essentially told us to ignore the written rule and enforce it the way they want us to enforce it. Pisses me off, to be honest.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:11pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff.mayfield View Post
I've read the case book and seen that play in the case book. Other than poorly written rules, how is the absence of PC by A2 justified in the presence of 9.9.1 indicating the required presence of PC?
Because the player control portion was a bit added by NFHS to try and reconcile the fact that they didn't want backcourt violations to be called on throw-ins thrown into the backcourt...not from regular play when player control has already been initially established at some point.
__________________
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 Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 719
A2's touching of the ball then causing the ball to go into BC results in a BC violation by A2. They were the last to touch the ball in the FC before ball going into BC.

Does not require PC, only TC
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:59pm
Often wrong never n doubt
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 737
Is is correct that on throw in plays that their must be player control in the front court but on all others there does not need to be player control in the front court?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy341a View Post
Is is correct that on throw in plays that their must be player control in the front court but on all others there does not need to be player control in the front court?
That seems right (but also seems like a confusing way to phrase it, to me)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:08pm
Often wrong never n doubt
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
That seems right (but also seems like a confusing way to phrase it, to me)
The reason I say that is bc with team control on a throw in a tap in the front court isn't enough to start the backcourt process but on all other plays coming from the backcourt it would be.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,029
The way that my area has taught it that past two years is that a backcourt violation is not a consideration on throw-in plays until player control has been established inbounds.
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Back Court Phx / Hou Triad zebra Basketball 5 Mon Apr 16, 2012 01:53pm
Back Court vs. Front Court. MagnusonX Basketball 72 Sun Oct 17, 2010 08:34am
Back court? kbilla Basketball 5 Wed Sep 12, 2007 02:14am
Back Court co2ice Basketball 16 Sat Feb 04, 2006 09:37am
Back court Steve_pa Basketball 4 Mon Feb 24, 2003 06:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1