Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638040)

It has been this way for a while. The ball gained backcourt status when A touched it in the backcourt. That is why it is a violation. If A lets the ball bounce B, by its deflection, caused it to gain backcourt status. The ball was still in team control with front court status until A touched it in backcourt.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 638039)

Yep, I left out the remainder of 7-2-1, which goes on to say "...unless the ball touches a player who is OOB prior to touching something OOB other than a player". So, to me, this is an exception that was added to prevent a loophole caused by simply following ball and player location rules, and the first part of 7-2-1. So what does this exception effectively do? It makes the player who is standing OOB be "...the last player inbounds to touch or be touched by it...", and also caused the ball to be OOB due to their location.

Maybe it was that same "logic" that caused the player in the interp to be the last to touch in the frontcourt, and caused the ball to be in the backcourt due to their location. (Again, for the record, I don't agree; I'm just trying to come up with a sort of logic to possibly explain the interp.)

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638045)

Doesn't matter who touched it last in the front court. The ball is still in team A control with front court status. If the ball touches the floor then A touches it, the ball has gained back court status by hitting the floor. With A touching it prior to it hitting the floor A has caused it to have back court status.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 638044)

If they wanted to use that logic, they should have added the similar wording to the backcourt ruling. Without it, the logic is different, the rule is different and the ruling should be different.

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638045)

Doesn't matter who touched it last in the front court.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638048)

The rule says team A must be the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status. Impossible to do here.

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638053)

By touching the ball prior to it touching the floor, they have caused it to gain bc status.

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638053)

By touching the ball prior to it touching the floor, they have caused it to gain bc status.

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 638056)

That is how they determined the ruling. It is a typical NFHS ruling a philosophy. Someone will be around to change a rule again and make it more confusing and less obvious. I agree completely that it isn't supported 100% by the rules.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 638057)

That's an understatement. Our problem is that it's actually contradicted by the rule.

Originally Posted by bbcof83 (Post 638065)

I agree with you guys. So how do you call this in a game situation? (Who gets the first "right thing to do" comment?:p:))