Backcourt or not?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

But wouldn't this fall under the interp from last year where if A1 is standing in the BC, ball has been in A's control in the FC, then B1 bats it to the backcourt and A1 catches it before it hits the ground, then you have BC on A? Same situation isn't it? B is the last t touch it, but A gave the ball BC status?

It would be pretty much the same, but that interp was declared to be officially bogus, here, if nowhere else. Was that officially resolved for the good of the rest of the world, somebody?

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It would be pretty much the same, but that interp was declared to be officially bogus, here, if nowhere else. Was that officially resolved for the good of the rest of the world, somebody?

I do remember the scorn heaped on that interp in this forum, but don't recall it ever being rescinded officially?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I do remember the scorn heaped on that interp in this forum, but don't recall it ever being rescinded officially?

I know it's been rescinded in my book. I won't be calling that violation any time soon.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I do remember the scorn heaped on that interp in this forum, but don't recall it ever being rescinded officially?

I don't think it made it to this year's case book.

So, it raises the old (unresolved) question: Is an interp that doesn't make it to the case book still valid? Are cases that are removed without comment still valid?