Is it just me or do situations like this make more sense when you are actually witnessing it on the court...

The whole A1 and A1.. none of it does justice for me. I'm a visual guy. LOL

I have to cast my vote with Camron on this. The Situation 10 interpretation is just plain wrong.

In Situation 6, A2 is in the air with front court status when he/she catches the ball. That meets the 9-9-1 requirement that a team must be the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and the first to touch it in the backcourt. A2 meets both requirements just before and just after landing in backcourt.

In Situation 10, even though A2 causes the ball to have backcourt status and team A had team control and the ball had front court status, team A is not the last to touch the ball in the front court, B1 is.

Rule 9-9-2 doesn't apply to this situation because it includes the statement "without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt".

I disagree. A2 is the last to touch the ball in front court. Per your statement here, A2 has front court status, the ball has front court status and then A2 grabs the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. A2 caused the ball to have backcourt status by coming down with it in the backcourt. It should be a violation. If A2 lets it bounce in the backcourt after B1 deflects, it is not a backcourt violation because B1 caused it to gains backcourt status.
Furthermore I do not believe a pass from A1 (backcourt), deflected by B1 (frontcourt) and then touching A1 again in backcourt causes a backcourt violation because of the 9-9-1 rule.

NFHS Situation 10 doesn't have airborne A2 grabbing the ball and then landing. Everyone (?) would agree that's a violation (assuming A2 left the ground from the frontcourt). In NFHS situation 10, A2 is standing in the backcourt and catches teh ball (and the ball has FC location until touched).

I agree with posts #1 and #7 in this thread.

Ref in PA,
You are correct that all three of your plays would be violations under the new interpretation. That is why interp #10 is just plain silly. It won't last. It can't last.

Camron,
My thoughts exactly. Nice post.

Thanks, Bob. I misread or read into the Sit. I keep loosing this server today and too many interruptions from work... haha. Now I see why the discussion has been on who touched it last.... that said, I still do not see the distinction because it does not have backcourt status until A2 catches it. Thus, in my mind, A2 caused the ball to gain backcourt status; not B1. Had A2 let the ball land in the backcourt, then caught it, would everyone agree it is not a violation? Is the scenario of A2 catching it in the backcourt giving it backcourt status really any different than if A2 caught it OOBs? A2 caused it to be OOB.... just my thoughts.... I do not have an issue with this Sit.

I do agree it is splitting hairs on the call. I suppose the coach must instruct his players to always let it hit in the backcourt first. This in my opinion gives the defense a slight advantage. However, I believe we discussed similar issues with the Sit regarding the throw-in deflection. I believe the consensus in that thread was that the throwin team was in control of the pass and in control of their on destiny (if you will); wouldnt that also apply here?

I was not refering to differences of the violations, rather to the point that you are where you are till you get where you are going; ball status and court status. That position will determine if a violation ensues (yes it is a violation to cause the ball to go OOB). To me the point of the interp is basic to court status. Thus I understand the logic behind this interp; but I keep most things simple and try to take them as they are stated. Others prefer to do "what if scenarios" and look beyond the basic concept of the interp. Isnt what is stated in the Sit fundamentally true?
I also believe this could give the defense a slight advantage because once the ball is tipped they may immediately grab it where the offense may have to let it bounce once, etc.

That's not it. "You are where you were till you get where you're going."

You are always where you are. That tells you nothing.

And: it scans better if you contract the last "you are." :p

You guys crack me up :) .... from the famous words of Animal House... I wasted 7 years of college for this...

But, Splute, the point is that "who confers BC status" has never been part of the definition of BC violation before. If this is really what the interp intends, then they needed to make a bigger deal out of this change. It's a fundamental difference in the definition of what constitutes the violation.

I appreciate your patience with me and these are strickly my views based on the reading.
We all (?) agree that if B1 deflects the ball into the backcourt and the ball touches the backcourt, Team A may recover no violation. We all (?) agree that if B1 deflects a pass and a Team A player with frontcourt status catches the ball in the air and lands in their backcourt; it is a backcourt violation. Therefore in my mind the same is true if Team A catches (in the air, ball has not touched bc) a deflection that has frontcourt status, while standing in their backcourt gives the ball backcourt status and a team backcourt violation. It bites, but it seems fundamentally the same to me.
I will start over and re-read this post from the beginning to see if I have a brain block or just bain dramage :)

Note that "cause the ball to go OOB" is specifically defined in the book and specifically includes "touching a player OOB before touching something else" (see 7-2-1 second clause and 7-2-2). These same qualification don't (or at least didn't) apply to BC violations.

I guess you're too cracked up to get it right. :p

Harold Ramis is cringing somewhere.