[assignmentmaker]

This has gotten way informative.

The rules of the game are written, of necessity, in a meta-language, in this case, English. Thus some terms will unavoidably be undefined within the rules - even if we are willing to make the effort to try to define everything. It's the nature of things.

That being said, the 'Backcourt Violation' rule is not crisply written.

Here is my original scenario, rephrased but not changed:

"Team A is passing the ball among its players in the frontcourt when B1 bats the ball. The ball strikes the floor in the frontcourt then bounces above the floor over the backcourt. A2 runs into the backcourt and catches the ball in the air, before it hits the floor. Is this backcourt?"

Smitty says of this:

"It was in the frontcourt before A2 touched it. But it's still not a violation because B1 was the last to touch it in the frontcourt."

I think this is a fair expansion of his proposition:

The ball HAD FRONT COURT LOCATION before A2, WHO HAD BACKCOURT LOCATION, touched it. But it's still not a violation because, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO A2 TOUCHING THE BALL, B1 was the last PLAYER HAVING FRONT COURT LOCATION to touch it WHILE IT, THE BALL, ALSO HAD FRONTCOURT LOCATION.

I suspect the history of the rule, original intent, is in accord with Smitty's view, but 9-9 doesn't break out the elements of 'ball location' and 'player location' adequately to preclude interpretation going either way. This is not good! They ought to re-write it, in my (humble, not-so-humble, take your pick) opinion. Or Casebook it. If you can Google something, you can Casebook something, eh?

G'night, all you baskethangers.