Here's a puzzler

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

It's called sarcasm.