backcourt question from Rulebox

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wyo96

Does anyone have anything that contradicts this Interp? If not, the OP is a violation.

Just the rule itself.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is

• a contradiction with the rule
• fundamentally wrong
• inconsistent with the way it has been called for decades
• introduces several ridiculous possibilities.

* A nearly 10 year old interp that has not recurred since nor shown up in the case play.

Originally Posted by joelpoli

doesn't A1 touching the ball that still has frontcourt status make A1 the "first to touch and the last to touch"?

There are three separate events that cannot happen simultaneously due to "before" and "after" requirements listed in the rules.

1. Touching the ball before it goes into the BC.
2. The ball gaining BC status.
3. Touching the ball after it gained BC status.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, how will you call the following play?

A1 dribbling (or holding) in the backcourt near/on/straddling the division line. B1, entirely in the frontcourt, bats the ball such that it bounces off A1's leg.

This is the exact play that should demonstrate the fact that the logic behind the 07/08 interp is flawed beyond assistance.