Over and back?

[Nevadaref]

But if A1 puts her right foot down in the backcourt prior to catching the ball, I'm not penalizing her no matter what that silly Interp #10 says.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But if A1 puts her right foot down in the backcourt prior to catching the ball, I'm not penalizing her no matter what that silly Interp #10 says.

I'm thinking you're just kidding... but by rule it's still a violation, correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I'm thinking you're just kidding... but by rule it's still a violation, correct?

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first in the BC, then catches the ball, that should not be a violation. A was not the last to touch the ball in FC.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first in the BC, then catches the ball, that should not be a violation. A was not the last to touch the ball in FC.

Uh oh. Here we go...

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first in the BC, then catches the ball, that should not be a violation. A was not the last to touch the ball in FC.

And this is why the "silly interp" comment was made. According to the interpretation, this is, indeed, a violation.

Originally Posted by mbyron

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first in the BC, then catches the ball, that should not be a violation. A was not the last to touch the ball in FC.

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first OOB, then catches the ball...
who caused it go OOB?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

If B1 tips the ball, A1 steps first OOB, then catches the ball...
who caused it go OOB?

Not the same at all. Read the four requirements for a backcourt violation. Team A must be last to touch the ball in the front court, no exceptions. "Causation" is not part of this rule.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Not the same at all. Read the four requirements for a backcourt violation. Team A must be last to touch the ball in the front court, no exceptions. "Causation" is not part of this rule.

Mark I understand that fact, but with the twist Nevada put on the OP. Didn't A1s recovery become a last to touch in the fc while simultaneously gaining control in the bc situation?

I always thought if B (in the fc) tipped the ball towards the bc, A had to let the ball gain bc status (by actually striking the wood) then regain possession

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to get it right. And not right by personal philosophies, but how the Feds want it called.
Any casebook plays on this particular situation would be greatly appreciated?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Mark I understand that fact, but with the twist Nevada put on the OP. Didn't A1s recovery become a last to touch in the fc while simultaneously gaining control in the bc situation?

I always thought if B (in the fc) tipped the ball towards the bc, A had to let the ball gain bc status (by actually striking the wood) then regain possession

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to get it right. And not right by personal philosophies, but how the Feds want it called.
Any casebook plays on this particular situation would be greatly appreciated?

You understand correctly according to the stupid interpretation. Most disagree with this ruling, because A1 never touches a ball with frontcourt status - the instant he/she touches the ball, it has backcourt status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Mark I understand that fact, but with the twist Nevada put on the OP. Didn't A1s recovery become a last to touch in the fc while simultaneously gaining control in the bc situation?

I always thought if B (in the fc) tipped the ball towards the bc, A had to let the ball gain bc status (by actually striking the wood) then regain possession

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to get it right. And not right by personal philosophies, but how the Feds want it called.
Any casebook plays on this particular situation would be greatly appreciated?

The interp (I believe) rather than a case play says it's a violation. The argument, however, is that it impossible to simultaneously be the last to touch "before" it goes into the back court and the first to touch it in the back court. "Before" is key here.

[Back In The Saddle]

Cause is a valid concept in OOB. Cause is not a valid concept in the backcourt violation. Last to touch, first to touch. No cause involved.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I'm thinking you're just kidding... but by rule it's still a violation, correct?

Nope. By rule the play is legal. By recent NFHS interpretation the play is a backcourt violation, and I have just decreed that interpretation to be null and void.

By unilateral decree...