Over and back?

[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.