Any thoughts on this play?
 

PLAY 5: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING 5: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1).

No new thoughts. It's been discussed before.

It is the way the Fed wants the play interpreted, but I don't like it. I hope they change the interpretation to say no violation because B was the last to touch it. We have discussed this before.

The extrapolation of this ruling leads to some very disturbing conclusions, my favorite being A1 is dribbling in back court. B1, who is completely in the front court of A reaches across the division line and bats the ball off of the leg of A1. Ruling would be violation if the above interpretation stands. Why? A has team control, ball obtains FC status from the touch of B1, ball touches A1 who is in backcourt. The fed wants us to interpret that as touching a ball with FC status in back court, causing the violation. Yet, A never brought the ball into FC.

Change the play to read ball going OOB instead of backcourt. OOB violation on A, B gets the ball. Same concept in your original sitch.

ok I can't find it....
 

What is the logic behind this being a BC violation?? BBR I searched and didn't see the threads discussing it.

It's in the pre-season interps put out by NF. It happens to be Situation 10.

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx

We've discussed in length in the past. There are some of us that think this in an absolutly idiotic interpretion of the spirit and intent of the backcourt rule. There are others that feel it is correct, and have not yet seen the error of their way of thinking.

I'm not sure where I stand on it, but I'll call it as written. :)

When you say it like that, it sounds almost reasonable!:eek:

I'm on the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way.

It's an interpretation that's contradicted by the rules. Stoopid monkeys!

Not to me.....

I must've missed this discussion. But...

Personally, I find this ruling nonsensical and wonder which moron thought it up.

Not which (singular), which (plural). It's a committee. You know what a camel is, don't you? ;)

Oh. Is it too late to change my mind?

Oh wait. Is it too late to change my mind about that changing my mind thing?

Scared of the Curse of the Rainmaker?

Know what they call people like you?
http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/j/ju/just4you/815575_pussy.jpg

Yes.

Hercules.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/75903