Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
"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?
|
You mean this play:
"A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg."
No, I wouldn't. I don't think A1 touched it before it gained BC status.
But I'm not sure your reasoning stands up: if we're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of causation, then the interp implies two events -- cause and effect -- which cannot be simultaneous.
True, 9-9-1 doesn't employ the word "cause," but what else could "went to the backcourt" mean?
[Still advocating...]