[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

....can follow two divergent logic strains:

The first is that A1's touching simultaneously equates to A1 being the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and first to touch it in the backcourt, thus causing a team A backcourt violation. The companion statement is that if A1 allows the ball to touch the court, or a B player, in the backcourt, before A1 touches the ball, there is no violation.

The second logic strain is that B1 is the last to touch the ball while it has A-team frontcourt status, thus interrupting the elements that would cause a backcourt violation.

Both logic paths have their supporters, the first being the NF stated understanding, which is not presently in the Case Book.

The problem with the NF stated understanding is that it is fundamentally impossible for a single event (the final touch) to be both BEFORE and AFTER (the terms of the rule) a reference point (the ball gaining backcourt status). The NF interpretation pure horseshit and can't be defended with a straight face after reading the rule.