That's the current FED interp (and most think it's also contrary to the rule). How you handle it is up to you.

That's not the current NCAAW interp (which matches the rule).

I keep forgetting to ask this at a meeting, or at least email the local interpreter.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That interpretation is utter nonsense. In no way does one touch occur in two places or at two different times, unless your name is Schrodinger.

You don't have to tell me. Tell the Fed.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

See Cameron's post number 70.

1. First part of rule---"Player shall not be first to touch ball after it has been in team control in FC,"

Here, ball is touched by B in FC giving it, the ball, FC status. We all agree to that.

2. Rule continues on "...if he/she or teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC,"
Grammar--this refers to the where the player was located when he is touched by the ball. That is basic sentence structure. 4-35. The player is located where he/or she is touching the floor. If I'm standing in BC and I touch a ball that has FC status, that changes the status of the ball, not my location.

3. Finally--last part "BEFORE it went to BC." Even if you believe part 2 above refers to the status of ball and not player location...one single touch cannot be BEFORE.

The interpretation is wrong.

Again... Don't tell me, tell the Fed.

If I call it that way I can point at the interpretation. Or I can argue with an assigner about what the interpretation should be. Or the assigner will back me up if I called it against the interpretation.

I'll take the path of least resistance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Someone will have to find the interp. The rule is there and it's really pretty clear. The "path of least resistance"...just a phrase I don't like...

When you're a ten year official with no pull you do what your "bosses" want.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ok

The ball still had front court status even though B1 was last to touch before A2 secured the ball in the BC. Thought is was a no brainer violation.

Would there be any difference if at the time A2 touches the deflected pass by B1, A2's foot was on the division line?

No. A2 is still in the BC (at least as I read your description of A2's location).

4-35. player location. ball location 4-4. two very different things....

So then it would be a violation!

Below is the interp from NFHS which is exactly the play I had this year. If you notice in the interp they don't use wording describing first touch or last touch or anything like that, they just use the wording "caused the ball to have BC status" while still being in team control.

SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

This is the entire point of the conversation. The interp does not follow the rule...not even close...Does not follow basic rules of grammar in the rule. The interp is wrong...in so many ways. see cameron post 70 and my 80.

I do get that but just my own personal experience makes me feel the rule interpretation is how the game should be called. Maybe they can write the rule better to more coincide with the interpretation, lol. :D