[Ref in PA]

It is the way the Fed wants the play interpreted, but I don't like it. I hope they change the interpretation to say no violation because B was the last to touch it. We have discussed this before.

The extrapolation of this ruling leads to some very disturbing conclusions, my favorite being A1 is dribbling in back court. B1, who is completely in the front court of A reaches across the division line and bats the ball off of the leg of A1. Ruling would be violation if the above interpretation stands. Why? A has team control, ball obtains FC status from the touch of B1, ball touches A1 who is in backcourt. The fed wants us to interpret that as touching a ball with FC status in back court, causing the violation. Yet, A never brought the ball into FC.