Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
"A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team
control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by
the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."
They're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of what causes the ball to have BC status. That seems OK to me.
I even think that the "simultaneity" objection lacks merit: if event A causes event B, then A has to happen before B. When a player's touch causes the ball to have BC status, the player was the last to touch before the ball "went" to the BC.
[Hint: I'm playing devil's advocate here. Can you locate the fallacy?]
|
"Cause" isn't my biggest problem; but it's not in the rule.
The fallacy in your point? Use of the word "cause" where it's not warranted. A ball gains backcourt status at a precise moment in time. A separate event cannot happen both before and after that moment.
So, let me ask you, would you call a violation on the play I submitted?