Last summer we had a 10 page discussion about the 5-second count. I composed a 3 page letter and sent it to the rules committee. They sent back a one paragraph letter that loosely translated to, "Dont call us, we'll call you." On the other hand, BktBallRef and MTD,Sr have had some luck making a little more fruitful contact in the past. So the answer to your question is, maybe. Why not give it a try?

And the Isle of Dogs isn't an island.

9.9.1 Clear as mud or just playing beyond its ability?
 

A Player shall not . . .
ART.1 . . . Be the first to touch a ball after it's been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by said ball having frontcourt status before it went to the backcourt.

If it were written this way, player A, in the backcourt in the original scenario, is more clearly the last to touch the ball having frontcourt status and the first to touch it after it has acquired backcourt status. Violation.

That's why I alluded to the 'catches the tap' issue. not because it is a perfect analogy, but because it is precedent for having, at times, to apply two rules at once.

This rule isn't now, never was and also never will be applicable to the situation that you are trying to apply it too. "He/she or a teammate" was <b>not</b> the last person to touch the ball in the frontcourt before the ball went in the back court. A player on the other team was the last player to touch the ball in the front court before it went into the back court.

Therefore rule 9-9-1 therefore simply DOES NOT APPLY!!!! That's why it <b>isn't</b> a violation! It also isn't a violation under R9-9-2. Rule 9-9-3 isn't applicable either. To the best of my knowledge, there is <b>no</b> rule anywhere in the book that would ever make the play we're discussing a violation. If there is one somewhere, again, could someone please cite it for me?

There's no need to re-write this rule either imo. It's written simply enough now.

Again,Jeff, none of what you're saying is relevant at all to the play being discussed. It doesn't matter a damn really who touches it in the back court. It does matter as to who was the last to touch it in the front court. R9-9-1 ony refers to an A player or his teammate being the last to touch it in their front court. In the actual play, a B player was the last to touch the ball in the front court. That means that R9-9-1 simply is not applicable. Iow, it means that any player on the floor from either team can now legally go and get the ball in A's back court.

OK, with the price of dogfood in Canaryland! Geez, officials are worse than lawyers!

<img src=http://www.harrythecat.com/graphics/A/popcorn3.gif>

You take 'last to touch it in their frontcourt' to mean last player with frontcourt location to touch the ball having frontcourt location'. I don't think the language means that, exclusively. But I think that's what the framers intended.

Attaboy, Jeff T.
...Spirit and Intent.
...Or was that Spirit and/or Intent? http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/conf44.gif

mick

Nope.

Chutzpah: Starting a fight, and then selling popcorn to the spectators!

:)