Backcourt AGAIN

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 2007 Interps, #10 (I think).

Many /most of us here think the interp is incorrect and that this should not be a violation.

There it is, thank you sir!

Just the proof I needed to send my partner.

Why whould anybody believe that to be wrong? As CoachP substitutes OOB for backcourt... everything sounds correct.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

There it is, thank you sir!

Just the proof I needed to send my partner.

Why whould anybody believe that to be wrong? As CoachP substitutes OOB for backcourt... everything sounds correct.

It's been discussed ad nauseum, but it's a violation to cause the ball to go OOB, it's not a violation to cause the ball to go BC. It's only a violation to be the first to touch AFTER it goes to the BC.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's been discussed ad nauseum, but it's a violation to cause the ball to go OOB, it's not a violation to cause the ball to go BC. It's only a violation to be the first to touch AFTER it goes to the BC.

How about a proposal of re-wording it to say "after or simultaneously"?
It seems to me as though the player was first to touch while causing BC staus at the same time.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

How about a proposal of re-wording it to say "after or simultaneously"?
It seems to me as though the player was first to touch while causing BC staus at the same time.

You are correct. It's similar to the jumper catching the ball violation. It's all a matter of interp. The current interp is a violation on A and I don't see it changing.