Straddling the division line
 

B1 deflects the ball away from A1 who is dribbling in the frontcourt. The ball is rolling towards the backcourt and is picked up by A2 who is straddling the division line.
Whats the call?

Team A maintains team control of the ball when the ball was knocked away from A1 by B1. The ball also maintains front court status until it touches the backcourt. A2 is in the backcourt because he has one foot touching in the backcourt.

If the Ball still has front court status then A2 has committed a backcourt violation when he touches the Ball; A2 simultaneously is the last person to touch the ball in his team's front court and the first to touch the ball after causing the ball to go to his team's backcourt.

If the Ball has acquired backcourt status before A2 touches the ball then there is no violation when A2 touches the ball.

MTD, Sr.

Am I missing something here? A2 can’t be simultaneously in both FC and BC. If A2 is straddling the line. a2 is in the backcourt. B1 was last to touch in FC.... this is no different than B1 knocking ball from FC to backcourt and A2 running it down...?

I agree with Kelvin and so does the text of the NFHS rule, but the NFHS interpretations agree with MTD. :confused:

That’s the rub.

The interp that has vexed us all for several years was recently reinforced, no?

I don’t like the interp. However, I acknowledge its authority and would strive to apply it if such a play confronted me. I’m just not certain I’ll recognize it quickly enough when 99% of my brain cells will be saying, “ok, defense touched it last, so they can recover anywhere.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My immediate response was "no violation" because I too think "B deflected the ball into the backcourt, so I'm giving the 'tip' signal." But a little something in my brain said "wait" because of that interpretation. It makes no sense to me that if A2 first let the ball touch the backcourt then there wouldn't be a backcourt violation.

If A was straddling the sideline, A caused the ball to go out of bounds. Same applies here. Hopefully makes it easier to understand. Backcourt violation on A.

Im going to disagree with your way of looking at this. At no point can a player straddle an out of bounds line and their team keep possession. The same cannot be said for the division line. You can't simplify it that much without a lot of confusion.

It's not a violation to "cause the ball to go to the backcourt" like it's a violation to "cause the ball to go out of bounds"

This is not a violation. A was not last to touch in the frontcourt.

More accurately...

A was not the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt.

The location of the touch is not important but the timing of the touch relative to the time the ball goes from frontcourt to backcourt is what is important.

I actually like this analogy (even though I don't like the interpretation). If B1 touches the ball and A1 is straddling the sideline, A1 can either touch the ball before it hits the sideline (out of bounds on A1) or they can let it go past the sideline first (out of bounds on B1) and retain possession. Similar logic with the backcourt, even though it's not entirely the same. It does help with the split second decision in the moment.

I am not understanding the confusion here. When you straddle the division line, by rule you are located in the BC. If you touch a ball that has yet to reach BC status, then you have violated the backcourt rule. If the all touched the BC and then you touch the ball while straddling the line, then you are still in the BC and the ball had maintained BC status. The OP never said what happened to the ball clearly after the deflection.

So if the ball had FC status and then touched by a player located in the BC, the violation is because the player caused the ball to be in the BC.

Peace

your last sentence is causing me to have a headache...:confused: I understand the rule but not that sentence...
I don't like the simultaneous interp because the rule clearly says team has to be last AND first. that means one after the other to me. two touches....

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. What is your ruling?

I've got nothing on this. But I think this is not the same as the other play. I think the player causes the ball to go to the BC because he is touching a ball that has not reached FC status on its own and then touches the ball. In other words causing the ball to be in the BC, which would be a BC violation.

I get the rub here, but I also think this is a case play and the NF has determined this is a violation, so I would go with a violation. That is what interpretations are supposed to do, clarify holes in the wording of the rules.

Peace

Sorry about the sentence...it says what you're saying (I think).

It is entirely possible to have a backcourt violation without every having the the offensive team touch the ball in the frontcourt (or, in a different play, backcourt).

EXAMPLE:

A1, in the backcourt, throws a bounce pass across the court to A2, who is also in the backcourt. However, the bounce during the pass was in the frontcourt. Team control...ball obtains frontcourt status...ball returns the backcourt when caught by A2 (or maybe a 2nd bounce occurred in the BC before A2 caught it).

A1 was the last to touch BEFORE the ball returned to the backcourt. A2 was the first to touch AFTER it returned. Yet, neither touched it in the frontcourt.

When the ball goes from frontcourt to the backcourt, you have to ask 3 things:
1. Was there team control inbounds at the time?
2. Was team A the last to touch it (anywhere) before it did so?
3. Was team A the next to touch it (anywhere) after it did so?

Yes to all is a violation. No to any is legal.

The location of the touch is irrelevant to a backcourt violation. You don't have to touch the ball while it's in the backcourt. You don't have to touch the ball while you're in the backcourt.

You have to be the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAS BEEN in the backcourt. That's why the timing is more important than the location of the touch. For example:

A1 is trapped in the frontcourt near the division line. A1 extends the ball over the backcourt in order to throw a bounce pass around the trap. The bounce pass touches the division line and then is caught be A2 who is standing in the frontcourt.

This is a backcourt violation even though no one touched the ball while it was in the backcourt. However, A2 was the first to touch the ball AFTER IT HAD BEEN in the backcourt. TWEET!

By NFHS interp, this is a violation. In NCAAW (and I think NCAAM), it's not.

I think this is the intent of the rule and the interpretation. Think of this example:

A1, in front court, passes the ball which B1 deflects. The ball bounces closely and parallel to the division line, staying in front court. A1 runs into the back court. With both feet in the backcourt, and the ball still in front court, A1 reaches over the division line and touches/possesses the ball.

I don't see how this couldn't be a backcourt violation. A1 clearly causes the ball to have backcourt status. Just as A1 would cause the ball to have backcourt status if straddling the division line. Just as A1 would cause the ball to have back court status if the deflection caused the ball to bounce in front court then in the air over the backcourt where A1 touches the ball before it obtains back court status.

If this truly is the intent, it could and should be written more clearly in the rules.

Thank you scrapper. I understand the rules. The OP was a play where the ball was being dribbled in the FC by A, deflected by B to a player straddling the line. I was giving Camron a hard time about word usage in his sentence.. "timing of touch relative to time..." Made me think too hard.

I don't understand how this is a violation in NFHS. The last to touch the ball when it gained FC status was team B (player B1's deflection of the pass), and the first to touch the ball when it gained BC status was team A (player A1 re-gaining control after the pass was deflected back to him by B1).

I agree with this 100%.

See this year's interps. It's almost exactly one of the plays.

(I agree it *should not* be a violation, but the NFHS has said that it is.)

See MTD earlier post. There is an nfhs interp that says when the A player straddling the line touches the ball he is last person to touch it in FC and first in BC. Simultaneous....I dont like it but it is there.

We're talking about a different play that was brought up. In this one A1 is not straddling the line.

From Nevada...

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. What is your ruling?

Sorry thought you were on original play. The reasoning is same here and this is the interp play. Ball gets FC status when B1 touches it. When it goes back to A1 his catch of the ball is viewed as the last to touch and first to touch...simultaneously. Again i dont like it.

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.

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.

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?

:)

Yeah, eloquent writing is not among my skill set.

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

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.

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.

While I don't agree, I called and spoke to a member of the NFHS rules committee. He is a personal friend and he is also one of the 4 IAABO national interpreters (and I know that means nothing to some here :D). He told me the rationale for the ruling is that the player straddling the line is simultaneously the last person to touch in the frontcourt and the first person to touch in the backcourt and therefore this is to be ruled a backcourt violation in NFHS. For the record, he disagrees but said he has been overruled on this discussion many times as it is a question that is continually submitted.

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.

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

(Nearly) Everyone disagrees with the interpretation.

Good point

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.

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.

Do not tell me what I do not get. I just have been listening to people like yourself tell everyone how we must follow the NF and their interpretations, and when it does not fit the perfect knowledge you have of the rules we just agree with what you say now? Pick a lane!!!! :D

It makes no difference to me. I think people worry about these things too much anyway. This is not likely to happen in most situations because players are afraid of even being close to the line in the first place even when they are allowed by rule to be there. I just find the position you take as funny. Now you do not agree with the ruling, but when you do, "We cannot waiver or make up our own rules." OK. LOL!!!

Just like the other BC situation the NF made clear they wanted to stick with, I am going to call it that way. Maybe the rule will change when they realize how stupid it sounds. The best way to change a rule is to call it the way they want. I got enough juice to do that and do not care if someone does not like it. Let them argue with the interpretations and get them changed.

Peace

You still don't get it...no surprise.

It isn't what I think here. I AM still saying follow the NFHS . The NFHS is just saying things that are contradictory. One of them is inconsistent with the rules and principles in many ways so it makes it easy to see for anyone that doesn't just want to pick a fight which on should be the correct one to apply.

I have been pointing out the NF contradictions for years. And people like you tell us how we must not waiver from their positions. Now we have to adhere to your sensibilities when the contradiction is too much for you to handle.

Look, none of us are likely to ever work with each other. We do not work in the other's states. We have to answer to those we work for and the NF certainly is not one of those people I have to answer to in any state I work for. We do not work in the same associations. So honestly who cares? I just find it funny when the people that love to get on their high horse all these years now want to get mad another contradiction or misinformation from the NF. Call it the way you can explain. Then again, this is the NF official interpretation. We know how important those things are to you. I clearly get it, I am just having fun watching.

Peace

I don't think there is a contradiction between the rules as they are written and the interpretation. Ball status is clearly defined. Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1 clearly states that the player A cannot touch the ball in the back court, after the front court deflection by B, before the ball goes back to the back court. It cannot be back in the back court until it takes a bounce.

Am I missing something?

I am much more on your side of this, but I also see the other side where the language is confusing. Either way that is what the NF has said is illegal, so guess what I am going to call when it happens? That is what interpretations are for right?

Peace

I agree about confusion. I had to think about it for a while but came to an understanding. Although confusing, it is not contradictory.

I agree. It really is not contradictory at all. It might be hard to understand as you said, but this player is in the BC and then touches a ball that never reached BC status.

Peace

This is what made that click for me. I kept trying to figure out how anybody could argue FOR this interpretation but I guess if it hasn't touched the BC, it doesn't have BC status.

In my mind, I guess B1 touching the ball should give A1 the ability to go get it free of consequence.

I think they made this unnecessarily complicated but whatever. That's why they make the big bucks, and I'm driving 30 miles to a 2A school tonight to make $95.

B is on the other team.
The interp says that the catch of the ball by A1 in his BC is both the last touch in the FC and the first touch in the BC. Problem is there's only one touch. Last and first means there are two touches. A last and then a first.....That's what 9-9-1 says. We dont have word simultaneous.
2. Also, grammatically, the wording of the rule about the last touch refers to the player's location. The last touch under 9-9-1 has to be by a player in FC.

This year's case book says the play is legal but the ball took a bounce in the back court before A1 touched it. That is key to understanding the outcome of this.

If the ball does not take a bounce in the back court then it still has front court status because B1 touched it in the front court. So if A1 touches it before the bounce, while A1 is in the back court, then it is a violation.

If this situation plays out and you call a BC violation, I think coach on the violating team is going to lose his mind. It is the correct call but the coach is going to think otherwise.

Read the rule. I understand it completely. B is the last player in the FC to touch the ball. B is located in the FC. If you read the words an A player has to be the last to touch it in the FC. That portion of the rule is not talking about ball status/location. It refers to player location. When A catches it on the fly in the BC he is the first to touch it in the BC. The ball had FC status but that A player didnt. It was B who touched it last in the FC. Whether it bounces or not doesnt matter by the words of the rule. The interp is just wrong. Again, there's no simultaneous touching in the rule.

Team A has team control in the backcourt. They still have team control after the ball is deflected. Team control is now in the FC. The ball has FC status after the deflection. The ball is technically in the front court when A1 touches it while standing in the back court. It is a violation.

Whether it bounces or not DOES matter by words of the rule. The last six words are "before it went to the backcourt". "It" meaning the ball. The ball is not in the backcourt until it touches the floor in the backcourt.

What player was located in the FC and what player in the FC was last to touch the ball? B. You are right that the ball is in team control of A and gains FC status when B deflects it. That's part of the rule. But it goes on to say last player in FC to touch. B is the only player in this example IN the FC. That's what words mean. B is last to touch in FC. And you are right the last 6 words refer to the ball. The touching of the ball by the other A player standing in BC makes him first to touch in BC. The rule requires more than FC status of ball and a touch in BC. Somebody on A has to be last to touch in FC

The key to understanding this is that the ball has to return to the BC status before A1 can touch it (this is the last 6 words of the rule). If the ball still has FC status when A1 touches it then A1 was the last to touch it in the FC. Because he is standing in the BC, it is a violation.

Again, I understand it completely. You are focusing on the last 6 words and not the beginning. First the ball has FC status while it is in the air flying towards A1. A1 is in the BC. The moment he touches the ball it gains BC status. There is no simultaneous in the rule. The interp says his single touch makes him the last to touch in FC and first to touch in back. That's not supported by rule language.

And again, I believe the last to touch in FC refers to the physical location of the player. An A had to be IN FC and touch ball. Touching a ball that has FC status does not mean the player is in FC. Again, I believe the moment it's touched in BC the ball has BC status. Don't agree that single touch means both

The first sentence in the rule starts out "A player shall not be the first to touch....". It ends with "before it went to the backcourt". So your thoughts about the moment its touched by A1 in the BC it has BC status is false.

Your giving me a headache🙃. The moment A1 touches a ball in flight while he is standing in the BC absolutely gives the ball BC status. 4-4-3 and 4. Ball in flight retains location of previous touch etc. ball touched is located where player located. No simultaneous anywhere.

No. That is not the key.

A is only prohibited from being the first to touch it in the backcourt (which they are) if and ONLY if A was the last to touch it with FC status BEFORE it returned to A in the backcourt. The key is the word BEFORE. A's touch in the backcourt can not be BEFORE A's touch in the backcourt.

The RULE:

My understanding of the rule is consistent with the interpretation. I get it.

Your understanding of the rule is consistent with the interp. Problem is that interp is not consistent with rule. We will agree to disagree on this one. Take care.

This is exactly how I see it too! I'm not even sure where the confusion lies???

I had a situation that would be similar to this this year.

A1 passing the ball around the perimeter to A2 while in the FC. B1 deflects the pass and the ball is heading for the BC. The ball is moving fairly fast and takes it's last bounce just before the division line in the FC. A2 runs 5 feet into the BC and secures the ball. The ball never bounced in the BC. I called the violation. The crowd didn't like it, lol, because it was deflected.

The crowd didn't like it because the call was incorrect. Based on the rule...who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it returned to the backcourt? Team B....no violation.

This is that play that's been talked about.

And from what I've read the interpretation is that A was both the last to touch the ball when it had FC status and the first to touch the ball when it gains BC status. Therefore a violation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

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

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.

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

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

Just asking. :D

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

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.

I still hate this interpretation.

I don't think this is an interpretation. This is the second (and less common) reason for a back-court violation -- I think it's Article 2, where most back-court violations are due to Article 1.