Quote:
Originally Posted by Toren
I see what you're saying APG...here it comes, but, look at the following case book play:
9.9.1 Situation C
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourts: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. Ruling: in (a) it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the backcourt.
Isn't this Ruling in this play completely opposite of the wording for the definition of a backcourt violation? The definition says we need player and team control in the frontcourt, and then this ruling we don't have that, we only have the last to touch first to touch ruling.
If last to touch, first to touch ruling is enforced in this play, it appears it can be extended to the OP as well.
|
This is why we have to pardon the rule writers for botching the wording in this rule. I said earlier that team control is not established in the FC so it isn't a BC violation. I think a better way to think of it is that PC can't be obtained OOB.
But of course the only reason why we know that the OP is not a BC is because the NFHS said the rule change only affects foul shooting in bonus.