Straddling the division line

[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

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

Because they say so.

You want logic. But most agree the interp is illogical. But the interp says that by touching the ball that has FC status, the player in the backcourt is simultaneously the last to touch the ball with FC status and the first to touch with BC status. So it's a violation. Because they say so. You can read and reread and reread the text of the rule, and you'll never get there. It's what the interp says, whether it makes any sense or not.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Because they say so.

You want logic. But most agree the interp is illogical. But the interp says that by touching the ball that has FC status, the player in the backcourt is simultaneously the last to touch the ball with FC status and the first to touch with BC status. So it's a violation. Because they say so. You can read and reread and reread the text of the rule, and you'll never get there. It's what the interp says, whether it makes any sense or not.

Thank you. This is what I've needed to hear. Not anyone's attempts to make sense of the rule, just say "that's the rule". And do so without bringing up similar, but not exact, interpretations or examples. That just confuses the matter or makes me think we're talking about different plays and thus the rulings are not necessarily the same.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

I ready your question as generic, not a specific to a play not mentioned. I don't go back and read an entire thread to see what you might or might not be talking about.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

He was. B1, in the air, has FC status. When B1 touches the ball, B1 does so effectively from the frontcourt. Thus, when it is then caught or touched by A1, it should not be a violation (by rule).

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I ready your question as generic, not a specific to a play not mentioned. I don't go back and read an entire thread to see what you might or might not be talking about.



He was. B1, in the air, has FC status. When B1 touches the ball, B1 does so effectively from the frontcourt. Thus, when it is then caught or touched by A1, it should not be a violation (by rule).

1. If you're going to comment to a person I would think you'd check and make sure what he's talking about first.

2. B1 is not A1's teammate, so the touch by B1 from Team A's FC should not be the issue. If the Fed wants it to be a backcourt violation, then so be it, but there is zero logic behind what you're saying. The "last to touch, first to touch" thing involves players from the same team... not opposing ones.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

1. If you're going to comment to a person I would think you'd check and make sure what he's talking about first.

Your question appeared to be about what I answered. The discussion was wandering and was no longer just about the OP but about principles and what if's.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

2. B1 is not A1's teammate, so the touch by B1 from Team A's FC should not be the issue. If the Fed wants it to be a backcourt violation, then so be it, but there is zero logic behind what you're saying. The "last to touch, first to touch" thing involves players from the same team... not opposing ones.

Incorrect. "last to touch, first to touch" is exactly relevant. When a B player is the last to touch that ball BEFORE the ball gains BC status, A can no longer be the last to touch. Thus, it can't be a violation. That is what the rule says and has said for decades.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your question appeared to be about what I answered. The discussion was wandering and was no longer just about the OP but about principles and what if's.


Incorrect. "last to touch, first to touch" is exactly relevant. When a B player is the last to touch that ball BEFORE the ball gains BC status, A can no longer be the last to touch. Thus, it can't be a violation. That is what the rule says and has said for decades.

But it is a violation. Or are you just stating that you disagree with the interpretation?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

But it is a violation. Or are you just stating that you disagree with the interpretation?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

But it is a violation. Or are you just stating that you disagree with the interpretation?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

The interpretation is incorrect. It fundamentally does not match the rule and the rule has been the same for a very long time. Not sure how anyone could come up with that interpretation if they actually read the rule.