I blew one last night..

Sounds good Scrapper, any casebook play to validate your stance?

[a4caster]

But you know the funny thing with this play is the inverse, for lack of a better term. If team A has the ball in the FC, basic play, and a pass is deflected by B into the BC, A can legally retrieve the ball. Make sure I'm right on that first.
By using the discussion above, B never had team control, yet we are allowing A to retain possession. Yet a tap on a throw-in doesn't have the same restrictions. Anyone else see the contradiction in this rule?
Just my mid-morning ramblings (lack of sleep and no coffee yet)

[ODJ]

CB 9-9-3 supports violation. Throw-in ends when legally touched. A2 touched ball with FC status. A1 grabs it in BC.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by ODJ

CB 9-9-3 supports violation. Throw-in ends when legally touched. A2 touched ball with FC status. A1 grabs it in BC.

Almost,..... don't forget, you still have to have team control mixed in there before a BC violation can occur.
.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by a4caster

But you know the funny thing with this play is the inverse, for lack of a better term. If team A has the ball in the FC, basic play, and a pass is deflected by B into the BC, A can legally retrieve the ball. Make sure I'm right on that first.
By using the discussion above, B never had team control, yet we are allowing A to retain possession. Yet a tap on a throw-in doesn't have the same restrictions. Anyone else see the contradiction in this rule?
Just my mid-morning ramblings (lack of sleep and no coffee yet)

If you allow B to tap it into the backcourt then not allow A to touch it while it is in their backcourt, you're penalizing A big time.

B taps it into the backcourt and then they are legally the only ones allowed to touch it. Major advantage. That's what the rules are for, to take away advantages like that and make the game FAIR.