Backcourt question

[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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Does individual touching by the defensive team end team control? Apples and oranges here, I think.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Does individual touching by the defensive team end team control? Apples and oranges here, I think.

Touching by anyone does not end team control after that team control was obtained. That includes simultaneous touching by the offense and defense. That was my point....and I'm missing your point. It is....?