Honi soit qui mal y pense.

For only one team. Which is why, to my way of thinking, it does not act like an OOB line.

I said: Causing the ball to have backcourt status, in and of itself, is not a violation. A1 throws the ball into the backcourt. The ball now has backcourt status, but this is not a violation until touched by another A player. In the op, when A3 touched the ball, he caused it to have backcourt status. By rule, this is not a violation since it was not touched last in the frontcourt by team A. The rule specifies that "last to touch, first to touch" is a violation. The interpretation in question directly contradicts the rule. Each of us must decide for himself which carries more weight, the rule or the interp. I have decided.

Think of it this way: Throwing the ball out of bounds is a violation.
Throwing the ball into backcourt is not.

I sure hope this gets re-addressed by the rules committee! All we really need to know is, does the b/c touch by A meet last/first to touch criteria... simultaneously?

According to the interp issued last year (iirc), yes it does.

Most of us here (not that we carry any weight) think the interp is "wrong."

Well, then I think someone who carries large squirrel n**tz should push this forward.

9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to
the frontcourt. While standing in A’s frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball
and deflects it back to A’s backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In
(a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of Team A, and a player from A was
the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it
after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the
last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second
count.

This interp is a little vague. It doesn't mention if it bounced first or not. Just says it returned to the b/c. It does sound like it conflicts with the interp in question.:)

Because, as the rule is written, it is NOT a backcourt violation and never was....until SIT. 10 from 07-08 came out with a play that fundamentally disagrees with the rule.

The rule says a player/team can't be, relative to the point at which the ball gains BC status, the first to touch AFTER it gained BC status if the player/team was also the last to touch BEFORE it gained BC status.

"After" and "Before" are effectively the same as "greater than" and "less than". There is absolutely no way for one thing to be both greater than and less than a single point (gaining BC status).

The rule was pretty plain and simple until someone tried to redefine it with Sit. 10 without also changing the rule to match.

If, And Only If ...
 

Great comparison. This helps explain the "odd" interpretation of this situation. Thanks.

The fundamental problem is that the rule doesn't address a very significant variable which is a Team A player touching the ball before the ball itself has established backcourt status.

So if the rule doesn't address it, (doesn't specify that it is a violation) it isn't a violation.

The reason that is doesn't explain it is that it simply can't happen.

Touching the ball instantly gives it BC status and you can't touch the ball before you touch the ball.

And who caused the ball to have BC status, B1 who hit the ball or A1 who caught the ball?