Life is short, but why talk about something else? If the person does not realize that we were even talking about one part of the rule after pointed out to him over and over, that is not my issue.

And then he tried to suggest that my statement did not apply to all situations, when it does. I am still trying to figure out that even on the situation he is discussing where PC is not first required before you have TC?

Peace

I know when you say "my statement" you are meaning all of your sentences and dealing with a throw in. Others have interpreted your "statement" to be only the sentence which said something like "a tip in the front court cannot give TC in the FC." If the ball is inbounds in PC already a tip can give TC in the FC. That is what the other folks have been saying. I've seen what they have been saying and what you have been saying. I just dont think you guys are seeing what each is saying....

You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a throw-in (or jump ball) you have to first establish TC in-bounds (because you have TC out of bounds on a throw-in for foul purposes), you cannot have a BC violation until some type of control happens in-bounds. Touching the ball does not start that time. Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

I see clearly what he is saying, he just does not realize we were talking about a throw-in and then tried to suggest a comment I made did not apply, while not giving a reason of why it was wrong. You have to have PC first to establish TC. After you have established TC, you do not have to be in continuous PC to maintain TC and which is why you can have a BC violation when the ball is simply tipped away from an offensive player based on who and when the ball is touched.

I am not backing down from this point. I am simply not.

Peace

[QUOTE=JRutledge;969295]You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

That was not what the original discussion was about. But that is what they switched to. you did not recognize that they switched to that. they did not recognize that you did not switch to that. How's that...:) the end for me.

The conversation switched? I went back and looked and the comment that I was quoted for making took place in post #12. Geof had a question about his misunderstanding of the OP in post #5. Billy used the first 3 posts to complete his article. Where did the conversation change? OKREF posted a comment on post #13 and even had to edit his post (which I did not see immediately) and tried to suggest that this comment was incorrect:

I am still trying to figure out why that statement is incorrect when discussing a throw-in?

Peace

The case play I referenced is irrelevant to the original question. I was just pointing out that what he said about a touch was not 100% correct. That's all.

Why is it not 100% correct? If you have not established TC, you do not gain control by a touch. On a throw-in you still have to gain TC which starts by PC.

Peace

Nevermind.

The TC was when A1 was dribbling in the backcourt. TC was maintained through the touch in the FC and the ball returning to the BC. TC was not established by touching the ball in the FC.

If A1 had been dribbling in the BC, lost the ball into the FC, it was touched by B2, then touched by A2, then bounded in the BC and retrieved by A1, it would still be a BC violation.

Again, we were talking about a Throw-in, that is why the statement was made. And the statement was only about a throw-in. But since we you want to pick nits, I will wait for why it is not 100% correct.

But you still have to have TC which can cross the BC to the FC.

I am not seeing at all your point. You have not stated why it is not correct. If it isn't correct, what about it is not correct?

If you are trying to suggest that having the ball in the BC and having TC has anything to do with a touch on a pass in the FC, then you really are stretching what I said. Then again, this is your point of view that often comes from weird places IMO.

Peace

When they say team control must be established in the FC they are saying that before you can have BC violation there must be team control in the FC. They are not saying that team control has to begin in the FC.

And that also means that B did not gain TC by the touch either.

This is why I am completely lost by his point. It makes no sense to me.

Peace

Rut, I read this as you saying there had to be a player possessing the the ball in the FC. Yes you must first possess the ball. This possession could happen in the BC. Then when the ball is passed from BC to FC and A only touches the ball, and goes BC and A touches it it's a BC. Please remember, I am not talking about a throw in.

Rut, A5 has the ball in back court(which means they have team control) A5 passes the ball to A3 standing in the front court, the pass bounds off of A3's leg, hits B1 in the leg, A3 reaches for the ball and knocks the ball into the back court, A5 is the first to touch the ball in the back court.

This is a backcourt violation, Team A still had team control because team B never possessed the ball. Team A was last to touch in front court and first to touch in back court.

No case play is 100% correct either. Many statements are contextual. You missed the context of the statement. Let it go.