Debate

[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?