Valid rule interpreation RE: backcourt violation

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A1 dribbling with BC status near the division line. B1 guarding with FC status, bats the ball (giving it FC status with continued team control) where it hits A1's knee. By the logic of the ruling we're discussing, this is a BC violation.

Interesting situation...I would agree that with this logic, it would be a BC Violation as well...hmmm....

-Josh

[mbyron]

Part of the confusion comes from the concept of causing the ball to have BC status. This concept appears in 9-9-2 but is absent from 9-9-1. Importing it into 9-9-1 seems to be the root of the (erroneous) interp.

[gslefeb]

If A1 is standing in the Backcourt, A1 has backcourt status.

If the Ball has FC status, as soon as it hits A1 - the ball now has backcourt status. It does not have FC status for 0.01 secs and then BC status.

The rule states - the last to touch in FC. Since A1 has BC status, how can they have been deemed to touch it in FC? The Last player to touch the ball in the FC was B1

The interp is interesting in the wording.. as it states - "caused the ball to have BC status"; This is not the same as last to touch in FC.