Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
The situation may say that...but it is wrong. The situation you reference is in direct contradiction with the rule book. It is never a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. Its a violation to be the last team to touch the ball before and the first team to touch the ball after the ball gains BC status (while in team control). This rule has been this way for decades and the rule is still that way.
|
Let's see...NFHS 9.9.1 states "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the front court, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt"
I agree with Camron on this one, the kicker to me is "if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt". What it comes down to is what does "touched by the ball in the frontcourt" mean? Do they mean "touched by the ball while the player has FC status", or "touched by the ball while the ball has FC status". I would contend that they are referring to being touched by the ball while the player has FC status. The ball cannot have FC and BC status at the same time, and this is what you would have to imply to call a BC violation here. You would have to say that A1 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and A1 is also the first to touch it in the BC. Well since A1 touched it only once, how can A1 cause the ball to have both FC & BC status at the same time? If you believe as I do that the rule means that a teammate cannot be the last to touch the ball while the player has FC status, then this interp runs counter to the rule...that being said, the interp is what it is...the question then is how are you going to call this, in keeping with the interp or the rule? I suppose I will follow the interp even though I don't agree it is consistent, at least you have a leg to stand on by following it..