Here's a puzzler

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

I'm with Indianaref. Be patient and let it bounce before you grab it. As clear cut as this b/c violation is why do we have so many questions about it.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"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).

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

[Raymond]

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.

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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

But by rule, B1 was the last to touch in the FC.
I, as others, think the interp contradicts the written rule.
But, that's JMO. It hasn't happened in any of my games yet.

If it does....I'll whip out my rule book.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CoachP

But by rule, B1 was the last to touch in the FC.
I, as others, think the interp contradicts the written rule.
But, that's JMO. It hasn't happened in any of my games yet.

If it does....I'll whip out my rule book.

Just don't whip out the interp.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

If the ball hasn't yet touched the floor in the BC, then A1 is the player who causes the ball to attain BC status by catching it, however, as has been stated numerous times on here before, causing the ball to attain BC status is NOT a violation. The violation is for a team being the LAST to touch the ball BEFORE it gains BC status and the FIRST to touch it AFTER it has done so.

[AKOFL]

I'm sure the horse is dead. Can we stop beating the poor thing?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the ball hasn't yet touched the floor in the BC, then A1 is the player who causes the ball to attain BC status by catching it, however, as has been stated numerous times on here before, causing the ball to attain BC status is NOT a violation. The violation is for a team being the LAST to touch the ball BEFORE it gains BC status and the FIRST to touch it AFTER it has done so.

Originally Posted by numerous esteemed members of this forum

3) the team in team control must be the last team to touch the ball in the frontcourt and...
4) that same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the backcourt

Not to be a smart-a$$ , but what is the rules citation for this particular premise?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not to be a smart-a$$ , but what is the rules citation for this particular premise?

9-9-1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team
control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by
the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

[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.