|
|||
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)
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call |
|
|||
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." |
|
|||
That Makes Sense
Quote:
That small editorial strike does make a difference. I think 9-9-1 finally makes sense to me now.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call |
|
|||
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?
|
|
|||
Quote:
"A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, There is no team control during a rebound.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 01:02pm. |
|
|||
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)
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call |
|
|||
Quote:
9-9-2 covers the ball itself getting FC status, but not touching any team member while in the front court.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
4.19.8 C editorial change | just another ref | Basketball | 30 | Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:56am |
Timeout Revision | stiffler3492 | Basketball | 1 | Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:15am |
Figuring out the RPP revision | Nevadaref | Basketball | 10 | Fri Oct 12, 2007 06:00pm |
Another Idiotic Editorial | cmckenna | Baseball | 13 | Wed Jun 12, 2002 03:02pm |
Revision 7-5-7 | BMA | Basketball | 9 | Thu Aug 30, 2001 10:06pm |