Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
That why I posted earlier (not sure if it was this thread or another) that the rule itself needs some added verbiage. Maybe an exception needs to be added to the rule for this particular scenario, just like they wrote an exception for jumping in the air to/from bc/fc on throw-ins.
|
Actually, the rule doesn't need to change at all, this interp just needs to go away. In fact, I believe they also agree if the ball bounced first in the backcourt before A2 caught it, it would
not be a violation, because then B1 would be the last to touch in the frontcourt, and A2 would be the first to touch in the backcourt. And we all agree that would be correct. That's why we've been arguing with their logic (or apparent lack of...), because they are saying since the ball was still in the air, it still had frontcourt status, and A2's touching was both "last to touch" in the frontcourt" and "first to touch" in the backcourt at the same instant.
"Last to touch, first to touch" is an easy concept to understand and follow, so I don't think it needs to be re-written at all. Just change the interp to say A2's catching in the air now gives the ball backcourt status, so B1's touch was the last touch in the frontcourt.