BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I wrote this play many posts ago to test when we should consider someone to be a defensive player.

JR seems to be saying that if there is no team control, then there is no defense. Is that your stance, JR?

If so, in the above play as soon as A1 releases the try for goal team control ends and you wouldn't consider B1 who blocks the shot a defensive player, right?
(I happen to disagree as B1 is clearly undertaking a defensive action by striving to block the shot.)

If that is the case, then you obviously wouldn't consider any of the shotblocker's teammates to be defensive players as they attempted to track down the ball. Thus you wouldn't grant B2 an exception to the backcourt violation.

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is NO offense or defense. Because the exemptions that apply in rule 9-9-23 are only for defensive players, throw-ins and jump balls, they are NOT applicable in the case described above. That's why it's a violation.

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your confreres can cite some rules why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.