Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
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.
|
By your reasoning regarding causation, he must have, as he causes the ball to gain BC status when it hits his leg. Fundamentally, it's identical to the interp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
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?
|
What else could it mean? Exactly what it says; perhaps worded slightly differently, "gained backcourt status."