Straddling the division line

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Shane O

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.

No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.

Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.

Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.

Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.

Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.

Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.

Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.

Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Originally Posted by Rich

Every time I see this play discussed, I refer to it as Schrödinger's Violation -- the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

I wish there wasn't such an effort to stand by such an obviously awful interpretation.

Yes indeed. Funny you should mention Schrödinger. You just put the umlaut on it that I didn't.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes indeed. Funny you should mention Schrödinger. You just put the umlaut on it that I didn't.

How did I miss that? Great that we thought alike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Is the only way to get Schrödinger with that umlaut to copy and paste?

Just asking.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is the only way to get Schrödinger with that umlaut to copy and paste?

Just asking.

Peace

No, you can get it by typing character codes.

Alt-0246 gives you: ö

That is, hold down alt as you would hold down the shift key for caps and, while holding it down, type 0246. Other numbers produce other special characters.

Here is a page that gives you several character codes: https://usefulshortcuts.com/alt-code...-alt-codes.php

I've always liked this one 8-Þ

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Rich

the ball simultaneously has frontcourt and backcourt status.

A situation in a recent game brought this topic up again, sorry to re-hash.

Several feel that the ball cannot have FC and BC status "simultaneously". However, isn't that what happens when A1, in the BC, spins the ball so that it lands in the FC, and returns to him in the BC? I know that is regarding article 2 but still, it is a BC violation and the ball has that "Schrödinger " characteristic.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

A situation in a recent game brought this topic up again, sorry to re-hash.

Several feel that the ball cannot have FC and BC status "simultaneously". However, isn't that what happens when A1, in the BC, spins the ball so that it lands in the FC, and returns to him in the BC? I know that is regarding article 2 but still, it is a BC violation and the ball has that "Schrödinger " characteristic.

No. the Ball has BC status then, when it bounces, it has FC status. When it returns to A1, it then has BC status.

It is only in one place at a time.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. the Ball has BC status then, when it bounces, it has FC status. When it returns to A1, it then has BC status.

It is only in one place at a time.

I disagree. Not really arguing if it is or is not a BC violation however I do feel that the play is the same as:

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bucky

I disagree. Not really arguing if it is or is not a BC violation however I do feel that the play is the same as:

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.

So, in English, are you saying violation or not. It isn't.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

I disagree. Not really arguing if it is or is not a BC violation however I do feel that the play is the same as:

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.

The difference is that in Camron's play, A was clearly the last to touch before the ball went to the BC so it's clearly a violation.


In your play B was the last to touch the ball in the FC (I recognize that's not the specific criterion involved in the rule), so the only way to get the violation on A is to have this "simultaneous last / first touch" issue.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The difference is that in Camron's play, A was clearly the last to touch before the ball went to the BC so it's clearly a violation.


In your play B was the last to touch the ball in the FC (I recognize that's not the specific criterion involved in the rule), so the only way to get the violation on A is to have this "simultaneous last / first touch" issue.

Sure, ergo, Schrodinger in both plays

JMO.

[Hawkeyes]

A1 is standing in his backcourt near the division line while holding the ball. B1 is guarding A1 while standing on the other side of the division line (in Team A's frontcourt). A1 attempts to throw a forward pass to A2. B1 jumps into the air and blocks the ball. The batted ball returns to A1 in flight (without contacting the court) who catches.

Thus Schrodinger does indeed apply.[/QUOTE]

This play is different because Team A never had team possession in their front court. Team possession in the front court is key.

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the interpretation is not how it should be called. Aside from the fact that there is no way to reconcile the interpretation with the rule, there are too many ridiculous outcomes.

Consider this. A1 holding the ball in the backcourt near the division line. B2, entirely in the FC, knocks the ball out of A1's hands such that it hits A1's foot. Violation? According to the interpretation, it would be.

Similarly, A1 dribbling near the division line but in the backcourt. B2, entirely in the FC, deflects the ball on the way up where it touches A1's hand again. When B2 touches the ball, it gains FC status. This, according to the interpretation would be a violation.

Both of those are just silly. Stick with the rule until someone can get on the committee to either change the rule or eliminate the erroneous interpretation.

Not arguing your broader point about the wording and poor interpretation - I don't like it either; but your above scenarios don't have team A with possession in their front court.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

Not arguing your broader point about the wording and poor interpretation - I don't like it either; but your above scenarios don't have team A with possession in their front court.

If by "possession" you mean "Team Control" then, yes, they do. A has TC. TC doesn't end until there's a try, or the ball becomes dead, or B gains control. So, when the ball reaches the FC (and it does in all the examples), A has TC in the FC.

If by "possession" you mean someone from A is in PC and is in the FC -- well, you're right. But, that's not part of the rule.