9-9-1 Backcourt - Editorial Revision?
 

2013/14: "A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, or if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

"Major Editorial Change" for
2014/15: "A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, or if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

Am I missing something, or are these two exactly the same?
Is there the "major editorial change" hidden somewhere in some other document that I'm not aware of?

(Forgive me if this has been discussed before...couldn't find a related thread)

You missed the change, they deleted the middle "or":

"Major Editorial Change" for
2014/15: "A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, [or] if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

I wonder what qualifies as a "minor" editorial change

That extra "or" would cause a tapped rebound to lead to a possible b/c violation.

That Makes Sense
 

Ah, thank you! The overstrike wasn't readily apparent on my cell phone when I looked at it this morning. It's clearly struck over as I see it on my laptop.

That small editorial strike does make a difference. I think 9-9-1 finally makes sense to me now.

Now I'm confused (doesn't take much). Doesn't the new rule (as relayed below anyway) say a tapped rebound into the back court would be a violation?

No, exactly the opposite. The word "or" has been removed:

"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, <s>or</s> if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."


There is no team control during a rebound.

No, see 4-12-3, team control ends when a shot goes up.

Please Verify This
 

A1, dribbling in his backcourt, passes to A2 who is in A's frontcourt, but A2 isn't looking and the ball strikes A2 in the back of the head. It bounds back into the backcourt where A1 resumes control.

QUESTION 1: It seems that 4.4.4 makes the solid case that this is a backcourt violation in the case of the ball striking an official in that situation. Is it correct that the case would be the same if it struck a teammate? That the ball striking the A2 gives the ball frontcourt status, thus a backcourt violation if A1 resumes player control in the backcourt?

QUESTION 2: Which rule determines that to be a backcourt violation?
A) New 9-9-1, or...
B) 9-9-2?


(I reserve the right not to be perfectly correct on anything having to do with the terminology of 9-9, still)

9-9-1 covers a team member touching the ball in the FC.

9-9-2 covers the ball itself getting FC status, but not touching any team member while in the front court.

PC is not needed -- touching is sufficient.

I would prefer the use of the word "during" instead of "after" team control in the text of this rule.

Unless you look at the horrible reasoning given in the case play that states the throw-in play we keep talking about is not a violation.

Two different contexts.
Bob is commenting on a situation in which the ball is already inbounds and one team has had a player in control.
You are referencing a play ruling specific to throw-ins in which no control has been established inbounds.
Hence, the different rulings.

I understand this, and I was being snarky. The fact is, the case play gives an incorrect reasoning for the play not being a violation.

They need to just fix the rule instead of relying on duct tape and WD-40.