The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:15am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
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
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 671
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."
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 546
I wonder what qualifies as a "minor" editorial change
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:32am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,866
That extra "or" would cause a tapped rebound to lead to a possible b/c violation.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:36am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
That Makes Sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 View Post
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."
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.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
That extra "or" would cause a tapped rebound to lead to a possible b/c violation.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:57pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus View Post
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, or 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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 01:02pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus View Post
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, see 4-12-3, team control ends when a shot goes up.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:33pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:49pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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?
PC is not needed -- touching is sufficient.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,749
I would prefer the use of the word "during" instead of "after" team control in the text of this rule.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:34pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
PC is not needed -- touching is sufficient.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 19, 2014, 02:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:01am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1