Debate

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by oc
If you check rule 4-4-6 I think it says pretty clearly that I am...

wrong. DOH!

Don't you hate that feeling? But now you own that rule! Good job.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

This is the funniest senario I have ever heard!

Agreed. I'd love to see somebody try it. Hawks Coach, you gonna test it out?

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Legal. Normal landing allow. If A5 caught the ball and stood there like a stork for 10 seconds then put the second foot down, it would be a violation.)

Just to clarify, this is a backcourt violation because the player did not make a normal landing, so the exception does not apply. [/B][/QUOTE]
Disagree. The whole point of the rule is to allow an airborne player to land, even if the feet land frontcourt, then backcourt. You let both feet touch, regardless of where they touch the court or in what order (as long as they're both inbounds, obviously). This is exactly why the exception was put in.

[Mike Burns]

Originally posted by caref
both feet and the ball must be over. The ball can still be in the backcourt and you have backcourt status even if both feet are in the frontcourt. Has been the rule for several years now. The key is you must be dribbling in the backcourt. Once the ball is picked up and both feet are in the frontcourt you are then in the front court.

I am studying the manuel and casebook tonight. Rule book is in the car and it is too cold to go out and get it. No direct reference in the casebook this year.

Yep! You got it caref! As you said, both feet and the ball must be over. Sometimes it is just better to find it for yourself than to have it told to you. "Give a man a fish..."

Good job OC on finding the rule in the book.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Disagree. The whole point of the rule is to allow an airborne player to land, even if the feet land frontcourt, then backcourt. You let both feet touch, regardless of where they touch the court or in what order (as long as they're both inbounds, obviously). This is exactly why the exception was put in.

Chuck,
Camron and I are both saying that if the player makes a NORMAL landing, then it is not a backcourt violation no matter where or what order the feet come down. However, I certainly don't consider landing on one foot and standing there for a few seconds, then putting the other foot down to be a NORMAL landing. Since the exception says that the player is allowed to make a normal landing, I feel that it does not apply if the player makes an unnatural landing and that a backcourt violation should be called.
Hope I made my position on this clear. Do you still disagree?