Is this the one?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

What do you call here?

He calls nothing because:

1. He recognizes the impossibility of following both the rule and the interp in every case.
2. He chooses to follow the rule where the two diverge.
3. By the rule, this situation is nothing.

[Johnny Ringo]

Does the 10-second count continue?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

Does the 10-second count continue?

Continue? No. But, start a new count as soon as the ball touches A1 in Nevadaref's question, or in more general terms for this situation, when the ball touches the floor in the backcourt, or touches a Team A player in the backcourt.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But seriously...

How about this - A1 throws a pass, and B1 intercepts the pass, but also happens to be standing completely OOB. Who "caused" the ball to be OOB?

I know and understand the terminology between a "player" touching the ball while OOB vs. another person, such as official, coach, bench personnel, etc. But isn't this kind of the same "logic" used for this famous interp? B1 intercepting the pass while OOB meant, in effect, that they were the last to touch the ball with inbounds status, and then the first to touch while OOB, thus making them responsible for the violation. If B1 had let the ball bounce OOB first, then A would be responsible for the violation because the ball then had OOB status on the bounce. Isn't this similar to the line of thinking that, in the interp, catching the ball in the backcourt before the bounce has the same "cause and effect" of the player intercepting (or touching) a pass while OOB?

Yep, I'm on very thin ice here. But I'm simply trying to come up with the "logic" behind the committee's interp.

This is the same logical thought pattern I came up with the last time I was involved in this discussion.