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.
|
That point might have some merit if causing the ball to have backcourt status was against the rules....but it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
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.
|
Again, nice point but incorrect wording. For there to be a violation, there is no requirement that the team ever touch it in the frontcourt....just that they are the last to have touched the ball when the ball was last in the frontcourt...BEFORE it went to the backcourt. Likewise, they need not touch the ball in the backcourt...only that they are the first to touch the ball AFTER the ball returned to the backcourt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
When I step on the line it is a backcourt violation because of two events occurring simultaneously.
|
They are not simultaneous. The player who is holding the ball was last in the frontcourt the instant BEFORE stepping on the line. The instant they step on the line, they are in the backcourt. AFTER that instant, they are the first to touch the ball (since they're holding it). That makes it a violation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
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.
|