I have no problem looking at both sides. :D

I don't think his idea does what you think it does. There would not need to be an exception to the location rule. When the player jumped, where were they? While their location is considered to be where they last touched the floor, they didn't jump from the FC becasue FC didn't exist. The only thing that existed when they jumped was inbounds/out-of-bounds.

Not really - in your case the only thing that needs to change is the definition of front court and back court. Neither exisits until there is player and team control on the floor. Player location wouldn't change, because they would still have a location of inbounds or OOB. They just would not have a location of FC or BC, because those locations don't exist for the purpose of a violation until the new definition kicks in. The same general theory as the lane - it doesn't really exist for the purposes of a violation until certain conditions are met first.

No messy exceptions needed.

So, is this what debate class is like - I argue your point, and you argue mine? :D

I like all the reasoning/discussion. If A2 has the ball in mid air from catching a throw in, he has team control but is allowed per rule to make a normal landing w/o violation. Why shouldn't he be able to make a pass w/o violating?

Even though the throw in exception by rule has ended with team control established, it really still exists until the landing.

The exception does not end when TC is established, it actually ends when the throw-in ends. 4-42-5 tells us the throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by another player. It has nothing to do with control. The exception allows the first player to touch the ball to go from the FC to BC, but no one else.

So, considered this: A1 has the TI, A2 catches the pass while jumping from the FC to the BC, and lands in the BC. No violation because of the throw-in exception. Same play, except B1 is guarding the throw-in, and tips the throw-in pass before A2 catches it in the air and lands in the BC. Now we have a violation, because the TI ended on B1's tip, so A2 is guilty of the violation because they were not the first to touch when the TI ended. Doesn't seem "fair", but the ruling completely follows all of the applicable principles of the throw-in, player control, team control, and backcourt violation.

The change we would like to see would eliminate this quirky play as well.

Which side are you on again?

That is certainly what the rule is....

Are you talking about the current rule or the idea of what it could be?

I not sure which discussion/debate or which side of it you're participating in at the moment (given what you type next).
That was the whole point of the idea I made in post #6

Maybe we could just make up our minds only argue our own points and not each others? It would keep me from getting so confused! :p As it is, I can't decide if I agree with you and disagree with me or if I disagree with you and agree with me or me or me.

Like I'm supposed to know?

You and me both! :p

I was just responding to CoachP's comment about the exception ending with team control. And it points out the confusion that occurs when exceptions are made to some principles.

As usual, what I was saying and typing were 2 different things. :eek: I didn't mean that the throw in ended because of the TC established. Try it with the parenthesises...

Even though the throw in exception by rule has ended (with team control established), it really still exists (the exception) until the landing.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. Stupid exceptions...

Dang, my head hurts. I think it's time for a weekend. The only problem is, I'm not sure who's weekend I'm supposed to have?!? :eek:

Tell you what....since you're not sure, I'll just take both of them.:D

Me, I'll be spending a good part of the day tomorrow coaching soccer....I expect we'll get thouroughly crushed. :eek: Having an extra one would give me the time I need to get some yardwork and other chores done.