Xavier vs Kansas State

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Stillblind

Mark, I can't disagree with DVR, but I saw it as I described. So for sake of argument lets go with my scenario. I believe it was exactly like the 2 or 3 year old NFHS Interpretation. K-State deflected toward the back court. The ball was in the air over the back court, but that still equals front court status. Once Xavier touced the ball, Xavier caused it to go backcourt. Had the ball bounced first in the BC then I say play on.

Originally Posted by just another ref

If it was exactly like the interpretation, it was not a violation. The interpretation was/is bogus.

In some people's opinion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In some people's opinion.

Apparently you are not in this group? Explain how the interp can be justified.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently you are not in this group? Explain how the interp can be justified.

I have multiple times. Let's just say I'm not in the camp that says 2 things cannot occur simultaneously.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have multiple times. Let's just say I'm not in the camp that says 2 things cannot occur simultaneously.

Two things definitely can occur simultaneously, but last to touch in frontcourt/first to touch in backcourt cannot.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Two things definitely can occur simultaneously, but last to touch in frontcourt/first to touch in backcourt cannot.

That's the part I say is up to debate.

And debating now would be a waste of keystrokes since I doubt either one of us will say anything that hasn't already been proffered.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And debating now would be a waste of keystrokes since I doubt either one of us will say anything that hasn't already been proffered.

Amen, Brother Newz. Amen.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Two things definitely can occur simultaneously, but last to touch in frontcourt/first to touch in backcourt cannot.

That's not even what the rule says. The rule says "last to touch before the ball goes into the backcourt" and "first to touch after it goes into the backcourt."

We have three events, (A, B, C).
If A happens before B, and C happens after B, it is impossible for A and C to happen simultaneously.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not even what the rule says. The rule says "last to touch before the ball goes into the backcourt" and "first to touch after it goes into the backcourt."

We have three events, (A, B, C).
If A happens before B, and C happens after B, it is impossible for A and C to happen simultaneously.

Which makes the interp even more bogus.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Which makes the interp even more bogus.

Agreed; that impossibility is the only reason I ignore the interp.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Which makes the interp even more bogus.

Fer sure......

It's a case play with absolutely no rules backing(as discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not even what the rule says. The rule says "last to touch before the ball goes into the backcourt" and "first to touch after it goes into the backcourt."

We have three events, (A, B, C).
If A happens before B, and C happens after B, it is impossible for A and C to happen simultaneously.

Define "goes into the backcourt".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Define "goes into the backcourt".

Ball location is defined. That can't quite be it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Define "goes into the backcourt".

I think it's safe to define it concurrently with "gains backcourt status."