Backcourt question

[Nevadaref]

Good question. I would say no violation.

It is not possible to state that a member of Team A was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is not possible to state that a member of Team A was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt.

On the contrary, I say. It is not possible to state that member of Team A did NOT touch the ball last in the frontcourt. Team control, last to touch, first to touch. On paper, this is a violation.

I'm trying not to get caught up in that "spirit of the rule" crud, but my initial instinct told me, no violation. I can't back that up in the book, though.

[Nevadaref]

1. A simultaneous actions by two opposing players are not treated the same as a singular action. A simultaneous touch by opponents is not the same as only one player touching the ball. So the consequences of the action are different. This is true for a simultaneous foul as well. Consider the impact on the concept of continuous motion or how the game is resumed.

2. Consider that the ball went OOB instead of into the backcourt. Which team would get the throw-in? Team B wouldn't automatically be awarded the ball following a simultaneous touch. They would have to have the AP arrow. However, if a member of Team A was the last to touch the ball, then Team B would be awarded the throw-in. So logically we can conclude that a member of Team A was not the last to touch the ball.

3. So the last to touch requirement must be singular with regard to a team. Therefore, we can state that this requirement was not met by the circumstances of the play, and thus there is no violation.

[Camron Rust]

Simultaneous actions don't imply that neither one touched the ball last but, instead, that both did. The handling of these cases (OOB example) is not because a team was not last to touch but because both are in violation of a rule and both are to be penalized. Both infractions are to be penalized but have conflicting penalties (possession). That fact forces us to the AP arrow.

Therefore, to have a backcourt violation doesn't require that team A be that sole team to last touch the ball. Only that the other team didn't touch it after them.

In practice, I'm probably not going to be able to tell that precisely and will only call it if they obviously touched it last and alone.

[Nevadaref]

Forget practice, Camron. This is a theoretical discussion.

Let's take it as a given that the ball is knocked into the backcourt while under the control of Team A by A2 and B3 simultaneously touching the ball, and then recovered by A4.

The debate is to treat this as both being the last to touch or absolving A2 of being the last to touch due to the participation of B3.

By pure physics I believe that treating it as A2 being the last to touch has great merit. There is no denying that he touched the ball and that no one touched it after him.

However, from the standpoint of the written rules, I don't believe that the words were drafted with this context in mind. Rather I think that the rule was written to cover only a singular final touch. The implication of the word "last" in our language is a singularity. As in being the last to do something or to finish last. If there is a tie, it is usually specified.

Furthermore, the absence of words to the effect of "or simultaneously with an opponent" lends credibility to deciding this is not a violation. I just don't believe that the rules writers intended to penalize a team in such a case. However, I do hate hanging my hat on "the purpose and intent of the rules" though.

[Nevadaref]

You know whose expertise we could use in this thread? BktBallRef

I haven't seen a post by him in a long time. Anyone know if he is okay?

Perhaps he is posting under another screen name.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1) Anyone know if he is okay?

2) Perhaps he is posting under another screen name.

1) He's OK.

2) No.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The implication of the word "last" in our language is a singularity.

Not necessarily. Ties for last place (and first place) happen all the time. When they happen, you can correctly say, "they were both last."

I know how you feel about the "intent" of the rule, but be careful. There's nothing in writing to back up our inferred intent. Unless someone has something more substantial, I say Jurassic is right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There's nothing in writing to back up our inferred intent.

Bingo! If somebody asks you to make a ruling on this play, you have to do so using what you have available. And what you have available is the precise rules language of rule 9-1. There's nuthin' written anywhere that I know of that can be used to argue that a violation did not occur.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Forget practice, Camron. This is a theoretical discussion.

By pure physics I believe that treating it as A2 being the last to touch has great merit. There is no denying that he touched the ball and that no one touched it after him.
.

My originai thought was backcourt violation until I read this part. Not because of a "rulz" issue but because of a physics issue. I think you have your thinking on physics backwards, but have an interesting point. Looking at the "big picture" A2 would be trying to keep the ball in the front court, thus it can be inferred that their motion would be going in that direction. Conversely, B2's effort would be to direct their momentum and the ball in the opposite direction. If the ball ends up in A2's backcourt (B's frontcourt) it could logically be deduced that B2 was the last to touch the ball thus negating "simultaneous". Sort of along the lines of an object in motion will continue in motion unless/until affected by an opposing force. It would be a physical impossibility for A2's forward momentum to cause the ball to go backwards.
I know it is not a "rule" but it is a law. At least that is what that Newton guy said. (Shortly after he made those tasty cookies!) So having said all of that, I am going to file it under, I would have to see the play described before I rendered judgement.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

My originai thought was backcourt violation until I read this part. Not because of a "rulz" issue but because of a physics issue. I think you have your thinking on physics backwards, but have an interesting point. Looking at the "big picture" A2 would be trying to keep the ball in the front court, thus it can be inferred that their motion would be going in that direction. Conversely, B2's effort would be to direct their momentum and the ball in the opposite direction. If the ball ends up in A2's backcourt (B's frontcourt) it could logically be deduced that B2 was the last to touch the ball thus negating "simultaneous". Sort of along the lines of an object in motion will continue in motion unless/until affected by an opposing force. It would be a physical impossibility for A2's forward momentum to cause the ball to go backwards.
I know it is not a "rule" but it is a law. At least that is what that Newton guy said. (Shortly after he made those tasty cookies!) So having said all of that, I am going to file it under, I would have to see the play described before I rendered judgement.

A2's touch could have just as well been an attempt to keep it away from B2 without any regard to the direction.

Imagine a brief tussle for the ball where B2 is trying to pull the ball form A2...in directions just the opposite of your scenario...but brief enough to not warrant a held ball....and the both lose it at the same time.

It could have also been a scramble for a loose ball that just happened to squirt out of a pile of players to the backcourt having last touched a player on each team at the same time.