Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
4ii) The logic behind the RULING is described as follows: A2 does two things simultaneously: 1) Causes the Ball to go from Team A's Front Court to Team A's Backcourt and 2) Is the first to touch the Ball in the Backcourt after causing it to go from Team A's Front Court to Team A's Backourt. And for the vast majority of old geezers like me, this analysis is logical, LOL. And that is why the "old" RULING was neither "bogus" or "erroneous".
5) It has only been in the last ten years or so that younger (I mean by experience) and some older (also by experience) that have questioned this RULING.
|
It has never been that way and the first I ever heard of someone that though so was when the bogus ruling came out about 10 years ago. It wasn't questioned before because that ruling never existed.
I'm shocked that you actually believe this since the rule doesn't say anything about causing it to go into the backcourt but about being the last to touch BEFORE it goes to the backcourt and being the first to touch it AFTER going to the backcourt.
From a mathematical perspective, this ruling would mean that the following statement could be true: x < y < x. Show me a number where that holds true and I'll agree with you.