8.3.2.k

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yeah, it implies it, I agree. Since he said "possessing" instead of "catching", I did not assume, and left open the possibility that F3 had to go get it before possessing it.

I read that as saying F3 might have possessed it after it bounced, which would not be a catch in the proper sense of the term. Some folks call this "gloving" the ball.

But I can't deny that the case leaves open when exactly F3 possessed the ball. From the ruling, I'm assuming it was at approximately the same time as the collision.