Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
How about this rule: if Team A is in control of the ball in the frontcourt, it shall be a violation if a member of Team A having frontcourt location is the last player to touch the ball before a member of Team A having backcourt location touches the ball.
|
Under teh current rule, Team A doesn't need to touch the ball in the FC for there to be a violation. Your wording would require that to be true.
|
I agree. Thanks! I failed to include the matter of the ball by itself acquiring from court location, as when it bounces off an official in the frontcourt, or, fantastically but possibly, is put into the front court with backspin and comes back to a Team A player in the backcourt.
How about this:
(Proposed 9-1 & 9-2) If Team A is in control of a ball having frontcourt location, it shall be a violation for a member of Team A in the backcourt to touch the ball unless an opponent's touch immediately precedes A's touch.
I think this covers:
1) the generic backcourt: A player on Team A has the ball in the frontcourt - passes, bobbles, whatever - the ball goes directly into the backcourt and a member of Team A immediately picks it up.
2) the generic non-backcourt: B1 knocks it away from A1 who is holding the ball in the frontcourt. It goes directly into the backcourt and A1 immediately picks it up.
3) the special case where A1, in the backcourt, bounces the ball off an official standing in the frontcourt, whereupon the ball returns to backcourt location and a member of Team a immediately touches it.
3) the special case I'm making such a big deal about, where where B1 in the front court taps a pass between two members of Team A who are in the frontcourt and the ball is caught in the air by a member of Team A who is in the backcourt.
But, maybe not . . . 
|
Still no good. It matter not where any player is when they touch the ball. The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status.
#3 is not a violation.
A violation. A1 misses pass that goes into BC that bounces off ref and returns to FC. A2 is the first to touch it...Violation.
You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done.
|
First of all, obviously #4 should have been labelled #4.
Second, "The only thing is the order of touches relative to the ball obtaining BC status." You're just standing there saying this is true because you say it is. I agree with the call. It's not clear in the language.
Third. If by #3 you mean the FIRST #3, huh? How is that not 9.9.1 Situation C?
"You're better off leaving the wording alone. It expresses the rule in about as simple a way as can be done." You know this, or you just feel it?