Working with a Veteran

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You mean this play:
"A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg."

No, I wouldn't. I don't think A1 touched it before it gained BC status.

By your reasoning regarding causation, he must have, as he causes the ball to gain BC status when it hits his leg. Fundamentally, it's identical to the interp.

Originally Posted by mbyron

But I'm not sure your reasoning stands up: if we're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of causation, then the interp implies two events -- cause and effect -- which cannot be simultaneous.

True, 9-9-1 doesn't employ the word "cause," but what else could "went to the backcourt" mean?

What else could it mean? Exactly what it says; perhaps worded slightly differently, "gained backcourt status."