Is this the one?

[tjones1]

Yes, sir.

[Adam]

Yep, that's the one. "cause the ball to have back court status" is not the correct rule basis, IMO.

[Welpe]

I was noodling this situation over some after re-reading the backcourt rules and I cannot understand where the rule support exists to call this a violation. A was in team control in the front court and was the first to touch the ball in the backcourt but was not the last to touch the ball in the front court.

What rule is violated here? Or is that the question that everybody else is wondering too?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I was noodling this situation over some after re-reading the backcourt rules and I cannot understand where the rule support exists to call this a violation. A was in team control in the front court and was the first to touch the ball in the backcourt but was not the last to touch the ball in the front court.

What rule is violated here? Or is that the question that everybody else is wondering too?

Yep. The committee says that A2 has performed two separate acts simultaneously.
1. Last to touch the ball while it had FC status.
2. First to touch the ball while it had BC status.

Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously.

[Welpe]

Hmmm...maybe this is the "Diebler Rule" then.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously.

Hey, I can walk and chew gum at the same time - does that count?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hey, I can walk and chew gum at the same time - does that count?

Nope. Because we all know you really can't do it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Nope. Because we all know you really can't do it.

Hey! Don't you have a baseball game to do, or something?

Or, to quote a famous, esteemed member:

Shut up.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Most of us consider it impossible to do two separate things simultaneously.

I think the issue is that a cause and its effect cannot be the same event.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think the issue is that a cause and its effect cannot be the same event.

Now you're just f$#^&#% with me.

[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.

[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.