Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
I was thinking about this interp and while I don't like it per se, I now see some logic to their madness. Apply the rule as worded to the situation when A1 is dribbling in his frontcourt. He picks up his dribble and steps on the line. This is a backcourt violation. Why, because he caused the ball to have back court status. The main argument against the "dreaded" interp from my perspective is that two simulatenous events occurred (last to touch/first to touch). We all know that's not possible. However, there is precedent in the minds of the NFHS for this. The back court rule states that the offense has to be the last to touch it in the front court and the first to touch it in the back court. When I step on the line it is a backcourt violation because of two events occurring simultaneously.
I still don't like the interp, but there is precedent for the simultaneous events occurring, at least in the minds of the NFHS rules commitee.
|
And there are other examples where all 4 elements aren't met yet you have a valid b/c violation.
I'm one of those in the minority who agreed with the interp.