Situation 10 still bothers me.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, completely different. It is not a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. If it were, it would be a violation for A (in the frontcourt) to lose control of the ball and have it bounce into the backcourt even without touching the ball again. Causing the ball to be OOB is a violation. Touching the ball after it goes into the backcourt is required for the violation (among other things), not just making have backcourt status.

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.