Backcourt or not

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There is no such thing in the rules as "after a throwin." It's either during a throwin, or it's not. In the OP, the throwin is over, so it's not during a throwin.

Nevada is right, the same logic used by the FED in the interp would lead one to call this a violation.

Stupid, but true.

While I understand yours and Nevada's reasoning, I still am missing the one point that Billy brings up: when is team control established?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While I understand yours and Nevada's reasoning, I still am missing the one point that Billy brings up: when is team control established?

When it is caught.

Now shut up.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When it is caught.

Now shut up.

So, you agree there's no violation, right? I understand though, you're probably recovering from having to be in Wisconsin over the weekend...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, you agree there's no violation, right? I understand though, you're probably recovering from having to be in Wisconsin over the weekend...

Good point, and I keep seeing Penny Marshall in my head singing a Disney song.

And I agree there's no violation, but I also question whether the establishment of team control would constitute the last touch in the FC or the first touch in the BC based on the dreaded interp; or persuant to the interp, if it would constitute both.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good point, and I keep seeing Penny Marshall in my head singing a Disney song.

And I agree there's no violation, but I also question whether the establishment of team control would constitute the last touch in the FC or the first touch in the BC based on the dreaded interp; or persuant to the interp, if it would constitute both.

Too bad, sounds serious. Take 2 bratwurst and call me in the morning.

The difference between this sitch and the interp is in this sitch, team control is only first established in the back court. The interp has team control already established in the front court before the ball goes to the back court. The wording in the interp even mentions, "Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Too bad, sounds serious. Take 2 bratwurst and call me in the morning.

The difference between this sitch and the interp is in this sitch, team control is only first established in the back court. The interp has team control already established in the front court before the ball goes to the back court. The wording in the interp even mentions, "Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status."

Good point. But the rest of the interp renders that little portion meaningless, I think. I'm fairly certian the committee would issue an interp or case play confirming it as not a violation; but the confusion inspired by their ill-considered interp gives cause to wonder. None of us would have predicted that interp, either.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good point. But the rest of the interp renders that little portion meaningless, I think. I'm fairly certian the committee would issue an interp or case play confirming it as not a violation; but the confusion inspired by their ill-considered interp gives cause to wonder. None of us would have predicted that interp, either.

I'm not a big fan of the interp either, but I don't think it has any bearing on the OP's sitch. In the interp, I think what they're trying to say is A2's touch in the back court satisfies two requirements for the violation - it gives the ball both back court status and makes A2 the "first to touch in the back court" at the same time. It also specifically mentions team control has already been established. In the case of the throw-in, team control is only established once the ball is caught in the back court. Even using the interp, the ball has front court status from the bounce, A is also the first to touch in the back court, but team control is never established until A caught it, in the back court.