Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.
Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.
Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.
Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.
|
Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.
I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.