Thread: Backcourt redux
View Single Post
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 25, 2005, 12:25pm
blindzebra blindzebra is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Lotto
]A player standing out of bounds who touches a ball is considered to have caused the ball to go out of bounds. A player standing in the backcourt who touches a ball with frontcourt status is not considered to have caused the ball to go into the backcourt. Maybe this is why we keep getting asked when A1, who is inbounds, throws the ball to B1, who is standing out of bounds for some reason, if B gets the ball because A1 "caused" the ball to go out of bounds. (I'm not suggesting that it does, rather, I'm suggesting that the different uses of the word "caused" is "causing" confusion.)

[Edited by Lotto on Jan 25th, 2005 at 05:46 AM]
I agree with Lotto. See 7-2 for the definiiotn of "cause to go OOB". 7-2-1 equally applies to the BC. 7-2-2 doesn't.

Isn't this on TH's quiz?

Than you are NOT agreeing with Lotto.

If you apply 7-2-1, A caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

7-2-1 says that if the ball hits A1 OOB BEFORE it strikes anything else OOB, A1 CAUSED it to be OOB.

Why wouldn't 7-2-2 apply to BC? If Al is touching the division line or behind it and they touch a ball that is in team control in the FC, you DON'T HAVE a violation?

Reply With Quote