By unilateral decree...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

Even without the disputed interp, my play above should be a violation:

1) Team control -- yes
2) Frontcourt status -- yes
3) Team A last to touch ball before it went to backcourt -- yes (even though A1 was standing in his backcourt when he made that touch)
4) Team A was first to touch ball after it went to backcourt -- yes.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Please don't confuse yourself by lumping them together. Doing that will yield incorrect results.

My play is governed by 9-9-1, since the ball was touched by a player from either team in the frontcourt of Team A, and is not a violation according to any sensible reading of the rule.

Your play falls under the purview of 9-9-2 and is a violation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Right, which is why I was concerned about the reasoning that was being discussed. It seems to make the play legal, even when it's clearly stated by rule not to be legal.