Tue Jan 25, 2005, 11:03am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
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?
|
I have to disagree with you on this one (seems like a shock to me).
There is no rule support which gives the ball simultaneous status - the ball is either in the frontcourt or it is in the backcourt.
|
No one said the ball had simultaneous status.
The ball is in the FC. When A2 touches the ball, he is in the BC. A2 causes the ball to go from FC to BC. It
s no different than a player who is OOB, reaching in an touching a ball that is inbounds.
For me, that is a BC violation. No, it doesn't fit the four criteria that WE created right here on this forum. But neither does anything that's listed in 9-9-3.
|
So basically, you're disagreeing with bob jenkins, right?
|