How come no one has responded to BktBallRef's post, back at #9:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Use the same scenario with the ball going OOB. If A3 is standing OOB and touches the ball befoe it hits OOB, A3 has committed the violation.
|
Isn't that the essentially the same theory - if B was the last to touch the ball inbounds, and A3 is the next to touch the ball while standing OOB, A3 is effectively the last to touch it, then cause it to go OOB. I know that's not the way the rule is written, but that is effectively what happens. The backcourt interp essentially follows that same line of reasoning.
Look at it this way - if we applied how we think the backcourt interp should be to OOB violations, here's what would happen: B would be the last to touch inbounds, then A3 touches the ball while standing OOB. When A3 touched it, the ball would gain OOB status (or backcourt status in what we think the interp should read), and therefore B would have caused the ball to go OOB (or the last to touch before the backcourt). But we don't call the violation on B, the violation is on A3 for being OOB at the time of the touch.
When I think of the backcourt interp in those terms, it doesn't sound quite as off-the-wall as it initially looked.