Quote:
Originally Posted by Toren
Give me an example of a backcourt violation where the ball doesn't have backcourt status. To say it has nothing to do with it, is a bit of a stretch.
I initially disagreed with the ruling of Situation 10. However, when I heard from Peter and Art, I changed my mind. I'm not trying to convince you.
|
A1, in the frontcourt but near the division line, throws a pass across the court towards A3, who is also in the frontcourt near the division line. The ball bounces in the backcourt on the pass (or bounces off the referee) and then bounces in the frontcourt on the pass before A3, who is in the frountcourt, catches the ball.
That is a violation while the ball has FC status.
And it is not a stretch at all. You're confusing the OOB rules with backcourt rules. They are not not the same. Causing the ball to be OOB is a violation. Causing the ball to have backcourt status is nothing.
The primary part of the backcourt rule that is ignored by this interpretation is that the backcourt rule defines an order of events that are needed to have a violation. To have a violation, A must be the last to touch BEFORE it gains backcourt status and the first to touch AFTER it gains backcourt status (regardless of what the status is at the time of each touch). Before and After are not the same as simultaneous.