Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
The problem with the interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense. The rule is designed to keep the offensive team from being able to use the backcourt area once they get it across the division line. If the defense gets involved in the play and directs the ball to that area of the court, the offense should be able to play the ball....whether it hits the ground first or not.
This really becomes apparent in a few situations.
A1 holding or dribbling the ball in the backcourt at the division line. B1, in the frontcourt, knocks the ball away (briefly touching the ball for a moment after A1 giving it frontcourt status) and off of A1's leg. Should that be a backcourt violation?
A1, in the backcourt near the division line, tries to throw a pass that is deflected right back to them by B1 who was in the frontcourt. Why should that be a violation?
Again, as worded, the rule just doesn't support the conclusion that before is the same as after. Before and After a specific event just can not be the same time. In fact, neither before nor after can be at the same time as the reference event itself. That is basic logic. Otherwise, as defender could obtain LGP after the shooter was airborne and claim he had it before.  |
These two examples are key, IMO. MTD must be willing to call those violations in order to say the OP is a violation.
Mark?