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 . . .

Huh?

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."

That much I get. What does the "catching the tip" part have to do with anything? I don't have my books with me so I can't read 9-9. What a confusing post.

I think it's tangential. He started comparing his scenario to a jumper at the beginning of the game catching the tip-off. But it's not a good comparison because B1 caused the ball to go into the backcourt, not A3. The part I don't get is why A3 is a baskethanging fool and what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

Maybe he just didn't like the fact that when he first posted this question, many of us said it was a no-brainer. So now he needed to throw some voo-doo in there to make us lose track. Good thing I had lots of caffeine today. :)

[Edited by Smitty on Jan 24th, 2005 at 06:57 PM]

When did he post it previously? I don't remember seeing it.

You're right, it's exactly the same. I also like the little editorial remark -- "You all are a little snotty." So maybe he thinks a week later, we'll be less so?!? He obviously hasn't been lurking long!

What is analogous is . . .
 

the notion that two rules may apply simultaneously. In any logical system, snotty or not, there will be meta-rules.

"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."

I like this. I tend to agree with it. If you take 'causes' to mean 'propels'. But this is a little unusual. Usually one causes the ball to be somewhere by virtue of touching it.

This is basketball, not a science class about chickens. The situation you cited is not a violation.

Z

Huh?

Z - LMAO. You should try standup. And yes I agree with you - on all your points.

Juulie, or for that matter with the price of birdseed on the Canary islands, as a good friend of mine once said......Tangential, now there's a word you can put in your Funk and Wagnell. :)

Don't be snotty.