Xavier vs Kansas State

[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.

[amusedofficial]

One should not read threads about backcourt violations while enjoying a refreshing Pabst Blue Ribbon. One can only take the death of so many brain cells at a time.

[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).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's a case play with absolutely no rules backing......

Like a blarge.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Like a blarge.

I don't know -- I found double foul in the definitions in about 3 seconds.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't know -- I found double foul in the definitions in about 3 seconds.

You mean to say that without that stupid case play, you would have come to the conclusion on your own that two different officials calling block and charge on the same play should be reported as a double foul?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You mean to say that without that stupid case play, you would have come to the conclusion on your own that two different officials calling block and charge on the same play should be reported as a double foul?

Of course. That particular play is covered specifically under NFHS rules 2-6 and 4-19-7(a).

The rules provide coverage for 2 fouls occuring at the same time. They do NOT however provide coverage for a violation and a foul occuring at the same time.

Any official with a little rules knowledge should come to the same conclusion without needing a case play.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You mean to say that without that stupid case play, you would have come to the conclusion on your own that two different officials calling block and charge on the same play should be reported as a double foul?

Of course. It meets the definition. What the case play does is remind officials that you can't ignore one and enforce the other if both are called.

Before we go down this road again, let me say I have no intention of revisiting any ground beyond this post.

[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."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Concurrently

One of my favorite words. It always bring a smile to my face when I hear it from a judge who is sentencing me.