Backcourt or not

[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....