Over and back violation?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That won't work because a pass from BC that touches a player in the FC and rebounds to the BC is a violation but there was never PC in the FC.
.

Under the current wording of the rule this is not backcourt. However the casebook says it is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Under the current wording of the rule this is not backcourt. However the casebook says it is.

When the NFHS changed the TC rule, they changed this part of the bc rule in a stated attempt to ensure the bc rule wasn't effectively changed. They put out a memo essentially stating they wanted bc called as if the rules hadn't changed.

1. Not everyone got that powerpoint memo.

2. New officials start every year that don't get old memos.

3. They said they were going to fix it this year. They failed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Under the current wording of the rule this is not backcourt. However the casebook says it is.

Originally Posted by Adam

When the NFHS changed the TC rule, they changed this part of the bc rule in a stated attempt to ensure the bc rule wasn't effectively changed. They put out a memo essentially stating they wanted bc called as if the rules hadn't changed.

1. Not everyone got that powerpoint memo.

2. New officials start every year that don't get old memos.

3. They said they were going to fix it this year. They failed.

Thus Jeremy, why I say the rule depends on how long you've been officiating.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Thus Jeremy, why I say the rule depends on how long you've been officiating.

I see and you can see my confusion as a first year official.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I see and you can see my confusion as a first year official.

We all predicted it.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Adam

We all predicted it.

Everyone? I thought I could fool atleast one of you
I knew how it was called but was confused when i read the rule. It seemed strange that everyone kept saying yeah it says that but that isn't what they want. Now that someone mentioned a memo it makes much more sense.

[jeremy341a]

Pg 1. Of the NFHS preseason guide talks about team-control rule change refined and underneath is list a few plays. Play #2 says A1 has the ball for a throw-in at the division line. A2, who is standing in the frontcourt, tips the ball to the backcourt. A3 retrieves the ball in the backcourt before anyone else touches it.
Ruling #2 Legal play. There is no backcourt violation since player control had not yet been established in Team A's frontcourt.

I think we all agree this is legal but it seems strange to mee that they use the phrase no player control in Team A's frontcourt. They did not say not player control inbounds. This seems to be more in alignment with the rulebook which says must have player control in the frontcourt. Probably just poor wording again but i found it interesting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Everyone? I thought I could fool atleast one of you
I knew how it was called but was confused when i read the rule. It seemed strange that everyone kept saying yeah it says that but that isn't what they want. Now that someone mentioned a memo it makes much more sense.

I meant that we all predicted that after a year (maybe more), more and more officials would read the rule and get confused. There were a lot who did that the first year.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Under the current wording of the rule this is not backcourt. However the casebook says it is.

This is not the only place where the casebook adds things which are not in the rulebook.