Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
The Duke player caused the ball to be where?
I know what you are saying but I'm really just playing a game of semantics b/c quite often folks here have a condescending attitude towards anybody who understands the "Struckoff" interpretation of the play as if we're a bunch of idiots.
The wording of the backcourt rules could be tweeked to eliminate any chance of debate, but then folks would be offended because when they see a rule one way and one way only anybody who comes up a possible alternative interpration is also an idiot who now wants the entire rule book re-written for their own benefit.  |
Causing in this situation is the same as the last person to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status. Since it gained backcourt status the moment it was touched by the OSU player, you have to determine who was the last person to touch it before that point....the Duke player. That player caused it to go into the backcourt.
Simply but, there is nothing to understand about the Struckoff interp....it is fundamentally contrary to the written rule and has never been called that way. There is no possible way to twist it such that it makes sense...an event that happens before a point in time and an event that happens after a point in time can't be the same event. It defies basic logic. They are two separate events. Her interpretation has declared one event to both be before AND after a point in time.
The rule could certainly be rewritten so support her interpretation, but in its current form, it can not result in that interpretation.