By unilateral decree...

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

I was very clearly discussing only 9-9-1 as evidenced by the fact that I quoted from that article. Any "reasoning" which was put forth was in the context of only that rule.

One cannot logically take anything that was written in that context and apply it to a completely different article in the rules book. That would also yield bizarre results.

The four-points system that has been enumerated on this forum is an excellent tool for helping an official determine if a backcourt violation has been committed, but it is not a complete substitute for the actual text of the rules.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I was very clearly discussing only 9-9-1 as evidenced by the fact that I quoted from that article. Any "reasoning" which was put forth was in the context of only that rule.

Fair enough. It's not the first time I wrote a little too quickly