Backcourt question

[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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Thus the reason at the end of the post I said I would have to see it to call it.
I agree with you 100% that different actions may get you different results. That is why in looking at the big picture, IE what happened prior to player/ball contact, will have a lot to do with the resulting call for a violation or the no call.

[just another ref]

As for the OP, realistically, simultaneous touch = I don't know who touched it last = no violation.

[bob jenkins]

On BI, the ball becomes dead. So, if A (or B) commits BI, and then B (or A) also touches the ball in the cylinder..., the second touching is ignored. But if they both touch the ball simultaneously ...

Of, if A and B enter the lane simultaneously on a FT ....

Can we use the same principles in the play at hand?

(I'd like to see the OP ruled the same as simultaneously touching the ball before it goes OOB -- use the arrow -- but that clearly isn't supported by the current rule)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

On BI, the ball becomes dead. So, if A (or B) commits BI, and then B (or A) also touches the ball in the cylinder..., the second touching is ignored. But if they both touch the ball simultaneously ...

Of, if A and B enter the lane simultaneously on a FT ....

Can we use the same principles in the play at hand?

(I'd like to see the OP ruled the same as simultaneously touching the ball before it goes OOB -- use the arrow -- but that clearly isn't supported by the current rule)

The 2 instances cited above involve dual violations--simultaneously committed by either team. In the OP, only team A could possibly be called for a violation. Imo, that's why you can't apply the same principles. Different animals.

We also know that simultaneous touching on a loose ball does not end team control either by rule, so that has to be considered also.

Again, jmo but I think that by using a strict reading of R9-1, the criteria for a backcourt violation are met by the OP. If I had to defend that call in writing, there's nothing else I can think of to defend any different ruling.