Straddling the division line

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

it doesn't matter if A1 is straddling the line or has both feet in the BC -- either way, A1 is in the BC and the logic (or the NFHS-version of the logic) is the same.

I thought that the logic was that by straddling the line A1 is at the same time the last to touch in FC and first to touch in BC... hence the violation. In the play I've been discussing A1 has never touched the FC. I don't see how these two plays are being treated the same.

Now, in my play, if that's what the interp says then ok. But if we're saying my play is that way because of that interp then I'm not convinced.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I thought that the logic was that by straddling the line A1 is at the same time the last to touch in FC and first to touch in BC... hence the violation. In the play I've been discussing A1 has never touched the FC. I don't see how these two plays are being treated the same.

Now, in my play, if that's what the interp says then ok. But if we're saying my play is that way because of that interp then I'm not convinced.

Doesn't matter.

A had PC inbounds.

The ball reached the FC.

A1 was (in the plays being discussed) touched the ball in the air, coming from the FC while A1 was in the BC and before the ball hit the floor in the BC.

All such plays are violations in NFHS.

These plays are NOT violations in NCAA.

If the ball hits the floor first in the BC (and was deflected by B in the FC), then these plays are not violations in FED.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Doesn't matter.

A had PC inbounds.

The ball reached the FC.

A1 was (in the plays being discussed) touched the ball in the air, coming from the FC while A1 was in the BC and before the ball hit the floor in the BC.

All such plays are violations in NFHS.

These plays are NOT violations in NCAA.

If the ball hits the floor first in the BC (and was deflected by B in the FC), then these plays are not violations in FED.

I can accept the argument that by straddling the line (therefore touching the FC) Team A simultaneously is the last to touch the ball while it had FC status and the first to touch the ball while it has BC status. But when A1 is not, nor has ever, touched the FC I don't see how you can say Team A was the last to touch the ball while it was in the FC.

The part about straddling the line is the key, because the player is touching both the FC and BC at the same time. If he's not straddling the line the interp does not seem to apply.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I can accept the argument that by straddling the line (therefore touching the FC) Team A simultaneously is the last to touch the ball while it had FC status and the first to touch the ball while it has BC status. But when A1 is not, nor has ever, touched the FC I don't see how you can say Team A was the last to touch the ball while it was in the FC.

The part about straddling the line is the key, because the player is touching both the FC and BC at the same time. If he's not straddling the line the interp does not seem to apply.

When A1 is straddling the line, A is in the BC. Logically, it's the same as A having both feet in the BC.

The interp has nothing to do with A's position other than being in the BC.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

When A1 is straddling the line, A is in the BC. Logically, it's the same as A having both feet in the BC.

The interp has nothing to do with A's position other than being in the BC.

The way it's been described is that A1 having a foot in the FC is a big reason why it's interpreted the way it is. A1 is simultaneously in the FC and BC. If A1 was never in the FC, how can you possibly say he was the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If A1 was never in the FC, how can you possibly say he was the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

Easy...A1, from the backcourt, throws a pass that bounces in the FC. As soon as it bounces, the ball has FC status. A1 was the last to touch the ball that now has FC status and A1 was never in the FC.

Now, lets say that such a pass was across the court where the bounce was just in the FC just across the division line. Then, A2, also in the BC, then catches that pass.
When A2 catches the the ball, it gains BC status again due to A2's location. Violation.

That pass could also bounce off an official or the backboard and return to the backcourt without otherwise being touched. Those would be unlikely scenarios, however.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Easy...A1, from the backcourt, throws a pass that bounces in the FC. As soon as it bounces, the ball has FC status. A1 was the last to touch the ball that now has FC status and A1 was never in the FC.

Now, lets say that such a pass was across the court where the bounce was just in the FC just across the division line. Then, A2, also in the BC, then catches that pass.
When A2 catches the the ball, it gains BC status again due to A2's location. Violation.

That pass could also bounce off an official or the backboard and return to the backcourt without otherwise being touched. Those would be unlikely scenarios, however.

There was no bounce. Can we please stick with the play being discussed here.

B1 touches the ball in the air, after jumping from the FC. Why is B1 not the last to touch the ball while it had FC status?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The way it's been described is that A1 having a foot in the FC is a big reason why it's interpreted the way it is.

I don't recall it being discussed that way (I agree that you've interpreted it that way, maybe from reading something.) That way of thinking, though, is wrong, no matter which interp (NCAA or FED) you ascribe to.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't recall it being discussed that way (I agree that you've interpreted it that way, maybe from reading something.) That way of thinking, though, is wrong, no matter which interp (NCAA or FED) you ascribe to.

Talk about eye-opening. Glad this play never came up for me.