Backcourt or not

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going off of memory here, but I recall that based on the rule, in order for the interp to work, the player catching the ball in the backcourt has to be both the first to touch the ball in the backcourt (obvious) and the last to touch it in the FC, thus causing it to go into the BC.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If the 2 are not mutually exclusive, then the group who wrote the interp are capable of determining the OP to be a violation.

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

[Adam]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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 same as 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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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 same as 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.

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

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Yeah, I can understand that.

Hey, wait a minute....