Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
I think it's a violation. In fact, I had that exact play last Friday night and called it a violation. So I agree with BZ with regard to the "simultaneous" touching.
I wish the Fed would issue an interp or case play on this play. I know what JR posted. Jenkins, are you around? Whatcha think?
|
It seems to me that if what you're saying is right, then no A player can be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, no matter what happened in the front court. In other words, I don't understand what you're saying, I guess. Is it because the ball hasn't bounced in the backcourt yet? If it bounced, would it now have bc status, and then B would be the player that "caused" it to go into the bc? That seems way too complicated, in my opinion. I'm sure not going to call it if I can't explain it.
|
No, that is not the case. The reason this is a violation is because the ball NEVER went into the BC off of B.
The ball that contacted B still has FC status until it hits the floor in the BC, or in this case an A player.
The case book play many are basing their argument on does not fit this situation, because A never had the ball in the FC. In this play they did.
What BBR is saying is this is just like A2 touching the ball right at the division line and then stepping into the back court.