Backcourt or not

[BillyMac]

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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 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

[Adam]

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.)