Backcourt redux

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
et encore:

The ball, in Team A's control in the frontcourt, is whacked to the floor in the frontcourt by B1 and bounces in the air over the backcourt, where A3, baskethanging fool, catches it. Backcourt or no?

NFHS Rule 9-9 joins the concepts of ball location and player location in a nasty grammatical mix, producing a situation similar to the matter of 'catching the tap', where two elements of the rules, control and violation, come into play simultaneously, instantaneously. The Casebook has adjudicated this, saying, "Bok, bok, the chicken came first, the chicken came first" : if A catches it, B gets the ball and A gets the arrow.

Consider the last phrase of 9-9: ". . . if he or she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

A3, indeed, touches a ball which has frontcourt location. The ball is where it was. The ball is, effectively, in the front court.

Thus A3 simultaneously 'causes it to go into the backcourt' and is 'first to touch it in the backcourt', the double whammy. If A3 had let the ball bounce in the backcourt, no problem . . . but he didn't . . .

If B1 last touched it in the front court, it doesn't matter whether "A3 simultaneously 'causes it to go into the backcourt' and is 'first to touch it in the backcourt', the double whammy". I don't get what you're saying here.

Oh, wait, I get it. No, A3 doesn't cause it to go into the backcourt. When he first touches it, if his feet were last in the backcourt, then he doesn't cause it. The last player to touch in the front court is the one who "causes it to go into the back court."