Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
All nice Mark, but the rule says it is only a violation of A was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gains backcourt status. As an engineer, you should now that BEFORE is not equal to simultaneous. (i.e., < is not the same as = or <= ). Also, the rule doesn't depend on causing the ball to gain BC status.
In both of your plays who was the last to touch the ball before it gained backcourt status? B. No violation.
If your interpretation were right, a defender would only need to be in the frontcount and touch the ball in mid dribble if a dribbler were near the division line to give the ball FC status. If the dibble were continued, it would fit your interpretation and be a violation. Do you really think it should be an offensive violation for letting the defense merely touch the ball? Think about that...it doesn't make any sense. Why would it be any different if the time/distance between the touches were a bit larger?
|
Camron:
Its not my intepretation. It was the interpretation that was given to me at least 35 years ago. That said, I am, more or less, neutral in this debate; even though I feel very comfortable making the call using the interpretation I was given at least 35 years ago. Sadly, I never asked for a reason, i.e., rule basis for this interpretation so I can only surmise what it might have been. That said, I just got home from a courier run and have to get ready for a WCBOA rules/mechanics meeting tonight; Daryl "The Preacher" H. Long, Junior, and I are having dinner before the meeting (the dinner is a tax deduction,
). And I am preparing a letter regarding a RULING in a new CB Play in the 2012-13 NFHS Casebook which is absolutely flat out wrong and cannot be defended by rule which will take come before this debate. But I do have something to add later to this debate.
MTD, Sr.