View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 16, 2017, 12:29pm
BryanV21 BryanV21 is offline
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
Because they say so.

You want logic. But most agree the interp is illogical. But the interp says that by touching the ball that has FC status, the player in the backcourt is simultaneously the last to touch the ball with FC status and the first to touch with BC status. So it's a violation. Because they say so. You can read and reread and reread the text of the rule, and you'll never get there. It's what the interp says, whether it makes any sense or not.
Thank you. This is what I've needed to hear. Not anyone's attempts to make sense of the rule, just say "that's the rule". And do so without bringing up similar, but not exact, interpretations or examples. That just confuses the matter or makes me think we're talking about different plays and thus the rulings are not necessarily the same.
Reply With Quote