Backcourt Violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mbilica

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

[Welpe]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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