Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Dude, the ice is cracking. The obvious flaw in your comparison is there is no "first to touch" requirement for an OOB violation. OOB violations are determined by who "caused" the ball to have OOB status; either by touching it last in bounds or by touching it while standing OOB.
|
I know, I know.
But, follow my logic: if you go strictly by definitions, 4-35-1 tells us player location: "The location of a player or non-player is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being (a) inbounds or OOB." 4-4-4 tells us "A ball which touches a player or official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location". Finally, 7-2-1 tells us, "The ball is caused to go OOB by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it..." Ok, so in my play, A1 caused the ball to go OOB because they were the last to touch it in bounds, and the ball became OOB on B1's touch/catch due to their location.
Yep, I left out the remainder of 7-2-1, which goes on to say "...unless the ball touches a player who is OOB prior to touching something OOB other than a player". So, to me, this is an exception that was added to prevent a loophole caused by simply following ball and player location rules, and the first part of 7-2-1. So what does this exception effectively do? It makes the player who is standing OOB be "...the last player inbounds to touch or be touched by it...", and also caused the ball to be OOB due to their location.
Maybe it was that same "logic" that caused the player in the interp to be the last to touch in the frontcourt, and caused the ball to be in the backcourt due to their location. (Again, for the record, I don't agree; I'm just trying to come up with a sort of logic to possibly explain the interp.)