The point of the rule is that team control has to be established in FC. Not player control, just team control and ball location in the FC. So, during the window between the start of the throwin and any player gaining control, it really doesn't matter who touches it or where, as long as the player gaining control does not do it in the air jumping from his FC to his BC. In the OP, it doesn't matter.

The interp Nevada refers to, however, makes this not true during normal play when Team control has been established in the FC. And, for the record, if your play happens then, it's a violation. It doesn't matter if B1 tips the ball before it hits A3. If A3 is the last to touch it in the FC, and he or a teammate is the first to touch it in the BC, it's a violation as long as team control was ongoing when A3 touched it last in the FC.

Right, but again the interp specifically says team control was already established. In order for the interp to be applied in this case, the committee would have to also determine that the "holding" of the ball (to determine control) happens before or at the same time as the "touching", which determines both the "last to touch in the frontcourt" status and "the first to touch in the backcourt" status. That would be an even greater leap for the committee.

Again, while I'm not a fan of the interp, I can kinda see what they are trying to do. Let me give an example - A1 throws a pass that hits B1, who happens to be standing OOB. A1 "caused" the ball to go OOB by hitting B1 (the ball has the same location as the player it touches), so why doesn't B get the throw-in? Because of that same simultaneous theory - the touch by B1 was, in effect, the last to touch inbounds, and also the first to touch OOB, causing the violation by B1, not A1.

Normally I would disagree, but if I find out they're meeting in WI, all bets are off.

The OOB rule is not the same as the backcourt rule. For OOB, it's very clearly defined that the player standing OOB causes the ball to be OOB when he touches it. For backcourt, this is not the rule.

It very specifically says the team must be the last to touch it in the FC and the first to touch it in the backcourt. If they can see one event satisfying both criteria, then their better than Scotty, because they can change the laws of physics.

And if they decide to meet in WI, I would hope they would tell all the members so someone doesn't wander around unaware that he's missing a powerful meeting of the minds that could change history.

OK, guys. Here's some nit-picky background NF rules info to help.

In order to have a back court violation, four conditions must be present. If any one of these conditions is missing, there is no violation - no exceptions.

1) There must be team control
2) The ball must have achieved front court status
3) The team in team control must be the last to touch the ball in front court
4) That same team must be first to touch the ball after it has been in the back court

Also remember - during a time of no team control (like during an NF throwin), team control is established when a player establishes player control. Player control is defined as a player holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Hope that helps some of you.

BTW - I spent a month in Wisconsin one night.

Yep, and the interp we're talking about no more fits all four criteria than the OP does.

I'm not trying to imply the backcourt rule is the same, I'm just trying to point out the committee is trying to use the same laws of physics in both cases. If you look at the definition of ball location, 4-4-4 says "A ball which touches a player or official is the <B>same as</B> the ball touching the floor at that individual's location." So, A1's pass that hits B1 OOB is the same as the ball touching the floor at that location, so by rule, A1 caused the ball to go OOB. That's definitely true if it hits an official standing OOB. But, there's the exception you correctly mentioned in 7-2. So, somehow, that exception allows that player to, in effect, be the last one to touch inbounds and cause the ball to be OOB at the same time. I said, "in effect", because I know it's not mentioned that way in the rule, and I'm extrapolating somewhat. But I'm just trying to point out a similar type of ruling to show they didn't pull the backcourt interp completely out of their a$$. (Just mostly, though.) I still agree the backcourt and OOB rules aren't the same. And I agree it still goes against the basic Player Location/Ball Location rules.

Maybe that wandering person wasn't told for a reason?... :D

Okay, i suppose I can relax now that you apparently agree with me.


Yeah, I can understand that.

Hey, wait a minute....

I Said What I Meant, And I Meant What I Said ...
 

The throwin ended when the ball touched B1. Since the throwin ended, this situation occurred after the throwin, but before team control was established. That's what I meant to say. I think.

The Infamous Situation Ten ...
 

Nevada is right about this casebook play being "odd", but the casebook play doesn't apply to the original post because team control has not yet been established. In Nevada's infamous casebook play, team control has already been established.

I understand what you were getting at, that the OP is, in contrast with the interp, a situation with no team control. Could be a shot, the original jump ball, or a throwin. I thought (at the time) you were looking at the throwin exception.

My point, however, in answer to your next post, is that while the interp very obviously mentions team control, the leap to that interp from the rule is much smaller than the leap from that interp to another one that says the OP is a violation.

If one event can qualify for two things that must happen at different points in time (the interp) in one instance, why can't they happen in another?

I agree that the team control thing, or the lack of it, would most likely help the committee keep their heads on this one.

I humbly suggest that we all put the one bogus interp behind us and do not mention it again rather that worrying about "If they said that it must mean that they also would say this if asked."

Let us not ask. Stick to the rule as we know it, and make the backcourt violation call, or in this case don't make it, accordingly.

And to anticipate the next question:

Have I decided to totally ignore the above referenced interp?

an emphatic yes

May I humbly suggest you take you suggestion and....

wait a second, wrong discussion. Sorry.

Look, I'm not saying the call should be made any way other than by rule. I'm not even saying Nevada's introduction of the interp into this thread wasn't somewhat gratuitous. But, this is a discussion board; and one with a history of taking a thread and extrapolating on other similar topics. This is especially common when a particular question is answered rather quickly and succinctly (as in this thread).

Feel free to ignore the thread or not (in the interest of not telling you what to do.)

That's the best, clearest, explanation I've yet seen on backcourt violations. Thanks for sharing it.

Yes, except his point 3 is wrong. ;)

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball...............if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt........