A link to your post is not the kind of real proof I am looking for. :D

I've Got A Bridge In Brooklyn For Sale ...
 

Aw. C'mon. You can trust me.

Here is another thought. Art 1. Player shall not be first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the FC if HE, SHE or a TEAMMATE last touched or was touched by the ball IN THE FC before it went to the BC.

The "in the FC" language refers to the location of the player when he or she touches the ball. Not the status of the ball. In your play team A has control in FC. B1, located in FC, deflects ball into air. A2 steps into BC. He is now IN THE BC, not the FC. He catches ball in air. Yes the ball had FC status and simultaneously gets BC status when he touches it. But A2 was clearly in the BC when he touched the ball. B1 was the last person located in the FC to touch the ball.

Let me know if there is a hole in this thought.

What is the point you're trying to make? The location of the player and the status of the ball when he touches it are one and the same.

When A2 touches the ball he is in the BC. The fact that the ball had FC status and simultaneously gained BC status with A2 touch doesn't matter because A2 is unquestionably in the BC when he touches. He cannot be the last to touch in FC because he's physically in the BC.

I ran this by my IAABO interpreter and his ruling is a backcourt violation

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yes, we know and have known their position for long time. Just don't agree with it.

I think everybody agrees with you on this. (except whoever wrote the infamous interp) A single player CAN do both things, but not at the same time.

I think what has been claimed is that because The ball has FC status when A2 touches it he is the last person to touch it in FC before it went to BC. We have said this happens simultaneously so A2 cannot be last to touch it BEFORE it goes BC. That focuses on status of ball.

What I am saying is looking at the wording in rule it could be that the physical location of the player is what matters. The last person to touch ball IN THE FC refers to where the player is located at time of touch. A2 is not physically located in FC so he isn't last to touch it in FC.

The fact that the ball in the air has FC status doesn't matter.

I disagree...it is about the status of the ball. Team A can still violate without ever being in the frontcourt.

Example: A1 in the backcourt at the division line makes a bounce pass laterally across the court such that it bounces in the frontcourt. A2, also in the backcourt catches the ball. That is a violation and neither A1 nor A2 were ever in the frontcourt.


Back to your play...B1 was the last to touch a the ball that had frontcourt status before the ball returned to the backcourt where A2 was the first to touch the ball after the ball returned to the backcourt (touching it gave the ball backcourt status and A2 was still touching it a microsecond after first touching it...and more). Since B1 was the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt, it is not a violation.

Ask him about this play:
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt near the division line. B1 is defending A1 while standing fully in Team A's frontcourt. B1 reaches across the division line and bats the ball into A1's knee and the ball bounces away from the dribbler.
Is this a backcourt violation?

Now point out that the elements of that play are exactly the same as the one which you previously asked him. Team A has team control. When B1 bats the ball, the ball gains FC status while still in control on Team A. B1 knocked the ball in the air and it contacted A1 before touching the court in the backcourt. Therefore, when the ball struck A1's knee the status of the ball reverted to backcourt.

Hopefully, this will illustrate the silliness of the previous ruling. He would have to declare both situations to be backcourt violations to be consistent. My position, and that of most posters on this forum, is that neither situation is a violation.

It's basically Schrödinger's back court interpretation.

This is an interp I conveniently forget I have ever seen since there is not only no rule backing for such an interpretation but it's also highly illogical.

Yes, this is exactly the play I have presented in the past to demonstrate the silliness of that erroneous interpretation.

This, above, is a violation under article 2 of the backcourt rule. I was looking only at Art 1. Just looking at art 1 grammar wise....Seems like the last touch needs to be by a player physically located in the FC.

I guess it is. ;D