Is this the one?

[referee99]

Is this Rules Interp the one that so many disagree with?

From 2007-08 Interps:

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

[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?

[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.