A1 is in control of the ball and is passing it in the frontcourt. B1 bats the ball to the floor in the frontcourt and it bounces into the air over the backcourt where A2, standing in the backcourt, catches it. Violation or no?

This might fool yah in real time if you haven't done the thought experiment.

No violation. Why is this a hard question?

Why should that fool you?

Now if you had said B1 and A2 both went for the ball and touch it at the same time and it returned to A3 in the back court...

My thoughts exactly Smitty. Maybe I need to activate my lateral thinking side of the brain.

I would think A would have to be the cause of the ball going to B/C not B

Wouldn't fool anybody that reads the case book. Team A gets a new 10-second count too.

Case book play 9.9.1SitC(b)

God ya'll are a little snotty.
 

It fooled a bunch of 'newer' officials, in every case because they were distracted by the issue of ball location. Since the ball doesn't yet have backcourt location when the Team A player touches it (it's in the air and it's location is where it last was), lesser minds than yours ocassionally concluded: "Team A's player 'caused' the ball to go into the backcourt." But ball location, as you point out, isn't the issue.

BlindZebra, that's interesting . . .
 

"Now if you had said B1 and A2 both went for the ball and touch it at the same time and it returned to A3 in the back court..."

Rule 9.9 says " . . . if he or she or a team mate last touched or was touched by the ball . . .", not " . . . if AND ONLY IF he or she or a team mate last touched or was touched by the ball . . .". So it would appear than the condition as stipulated is met, a was last/first. Has this particular issue been addressed in the Casebook?

If there was apparent simultaneous touching, the offense gets the benefit of the doubt and I have no violation.

Re: BlindZebra, that's interesting . . .
 

No, it's not.