Straddling the division line

[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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

Good point

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

I have been told for years on this site that I have to adhere to every interpretation by the NF and now we have the same people who were holier-than-thou about those topics trying to tell others what they disagree with. But when it was another issue, "But that is the rule or interpretation." Sorry as I find that rather ironic and mostly funny.

It is an interpretation. I get it that it is not popular, but those are the interpretations, right? What do we do when someone calls us to the carpet on the interpretation and we called something different?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have been told for years on this site that I have to adhere to every interpretation by the NF and now we have the same people who were holier-than-thou about those topics trying to tell others what they disagree with. But when it was another issue, "But that is the rule or interpretation." Sorry as I find that rather ironic and mostly funny.

It is an interpretation. I get it that it is not popular, but those are the interpretations, right? What do we do when someone calls us to the carpet on the interpretation and we called something different?

Peace

You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone can understand.

It isn't that we're just disagreeing with an interpretation. The interpretation itself contradicts the rule. As such, we have two opposing rulings, both of which can't be correct. We're going with the one that has been there for 50+ years vs. one that came out of nowhere. The new interpretation can't be correct without a rule change.

[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.