I'll rule a BC violation. B2 is last to touch the ball in the FC but not the last to touch the ball while the ball still has FC status. I hope I'm not contradicting myself here.

What if B2 is the last to touch in bounds, and instead of the ball landing out of bounds, it is caught by A1 out of bounds before the ball ever bounces out of bounds? A1 caused the violation, No? Granted, it's comparing granny smiths with macintosh, but in my little brain they're still apples.

Okay, now consider this play.
A1 dribbling from BC to front court. While he's still standing in the BC, B1 reaches and swats the ball (now ending the dribble and the accompanying "three points" requirement thus giving the ball FC status while still maintaining Team A control) into the air behind A1. B1 is standing completely in the FC. A1 steps back and catches the ball before it hits the floor.

By your interp, this is a violation.

You are.

A's touch in the backcourt gives the ball backcourt status simultaneous with the touch. Agree? Now, consider this part of the rule: "touched...the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt". Who was the last person to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt? B2.

Basically, you draw a line in time at the very instant the ball gains BC status. If the last player to touch the ball before that point in time was team A and the first player after that point in time was team A, you have a violation. (Assuming team control).

It's not close enough to compare...having the ball go to the BC is not a violation as going OOB is.

Ok, read and thought 2 different things, please accept my apologies and promises that I won't try to mix work and officiating at the same time. I'm still sticking with a BC violation; however, I will keep an open mind. Thanks

Using this logic, <B>every</B> tip by the defense would be a violation. That is not how the rule is written.

Is it though? Team A never had TC in the FC, a requirement of 9.9.1....

Is it a requirement?
Team has control.
Ball gains FC status.

No, my interp requires Team A to have control of the ball in the FC. Your twist on the situation doesn't provide that.

Look, I'll agree that there's a gray area around the "last to touch or be touched in the frontcourt" and that part could be construed as missing from the requirements needed to call a BC violation. But, I can't bring myself to say that B2 caused the ball to go in the BC, may have helped it along but the ball still had FC status when A2 caught the ball.

Yeah I suppose you do have team control, albeit during an interrupted dribble when tipped...and you do have FC "status" for the ball...even more reason why this interp is BS....

And in Snaqs play Team A has team control and the ball has FC status after B2 batted it up into the air. So by the new interp, it is a BC violation when A2 catches the ball without letting it bounce.

PS kbilla this is NOT an interrupted dribble. The dribble has ended when B2 knocked the ball away.

I never implied every, if the ball gains BC status (bouncing once in the BC would do) prior to A2 grabbing the ball I would have nothing.

9-1-1 says... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt...

Notice, there's no "and" in the rule.

We're not talking about the rule. We're talking about the new interp.

I've already stated that I believe that the new interp is poor and does not mesh with the text of the rule.

My point is that you are trying to have it both ways. You wish to call one play by the text of the rule and another according to the new interp. That doesn't work.

Although the more I think about it, there is no team control in the FC in your example. I think the way the rule is written, there needs to be team control with both the team A players and the ball in the FC before you can have a BC violation..we at least have this much in this bogus interp...I still think this interp is BS, but I don't think we can extrapolate it to this point...JMHO..

Nevermind, complete brainfart...what happens when you try to immerse yourself in the text of the rules...you are correct, this would be a violation as well and another reason why this interp stinks..