Back court

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm aware of the status of the ball. I'm also aware of the text of the rule. Note the use of the word "before" in 9-9-1. Before does not equate to simultaneous.
In the play provided, the status of the ball changes from frontcourt to backcourt at the same time as A3 touches it while standing in his backcourt. The rule requires that a member of Team A be the last to touch the ball in frontcourt BEFORE it goes to the backcourt in order for a violation to occur. In this play, A3's touch is simultaneous with the ball going to the backcourt, not before. That doesn't mesh with the rule. The author wants you to accept that A3 is doing two things with one touch--being both the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. The rule requires two different points in time and the author can't have it both ways.

If we go back to the previous touch of the ball before A3's, we see that the simple answer is that the last touch in the frontcourt in this scenario was by a member of Team B. A3 merely has the first touch in the backcourt.

I have always made the "simultaneous" is not "before" argument. Can you and others look at my post above yours and tell me what you think about that. "In FC refers to location of player, not status of ball. Thx

[Adam]

I would present the other plays that fit the same logic and see if they want to be consistent.

[Camron Rust]

If it were a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status, it would be a violation whenever A threw the ball into the backcourt and the ball touched the floor....but causing the ball to have backcourt status isn't a violation.

[Rich]

It amazes me how people try to fit the most technical definition into a ruling....and just make it nonsensical.

If I were king, I would eliminate all backcourt violations where B hits the ball off A in the frontcourt and A is the first to touch, too.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Rich

It amazes me how people try to fit the most technical definition into a ruling....and just make it nonsensical.

If I were king, I would eliminate all backcourt violations where B hits the ball off A in the frontcourt and A is the first to touch, too.

Or we could be really silly and make the division OOB once the ball and player is established in a controlling team's front court.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Or we could be really silly and make the division OOB once the ball and player is established in a controlling team's front court.

Makes for an awfully short game if the ball can never go to the other end.

But the interpretation really does seem bent on treating the back court as OOB: just as a player who is OOB and is hit by a ball before it touches the floor "causes" the ball to go OOB, the interp makes the player responsible if the ball touches him before it touches the floor in the back court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Makes for an awfully short game if the ball can never go to the other end.

But the interpretation really does seem bent on treating the back court as OOB: just as a player who is OOB and is hit by a ball before it touches the floor "causes" the ball to go OOB, the interp makes the player responsible if the ball touches him before it touches the floor in the back court.

But not really since the ball hitting the floor doesn't create a violation.