Working with a Veteran

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.


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

OK, I'll come clean: the interp is flawed in supposing that the touching by A and the ball gaining backcourt status are distinct events. If they were distinct, it might make sense to say that the former causes the latter. But they're not.

Without getting too metaphysical, the touch by A does not cause the ball to go to the BC, it constitutes the ball gaining BC status. The touch just is the ball gaining BC status. I think this is the idea people are reaching for when they say that the "two" events are "simultaneous." I would like to tell the committee that you don't have two events here at all: just one event, with two ways of describing it. One description is about touching, and one is about the status of the ball.

That's why "cause" is inappropriate for the interpretation of "went to the backcourt." Without two distinct events, you cannot possibly have cause and effect.

And so when A is in the BC and touches the ball, A is NOT the last to touch before the ball went to the BC. No violation.

[26 Year Gap]

A1 releases the ball on a throw-in attempt. B-1 a. deflects ball to A1 who catches it or touches the ball while still standing out of bounds. b. touches the ball while standing out of bounds after B-1's deflected ball hits the floor. c. deflected ball hits the official who is standing out of bounds and then is touched by A1 who is still standing out of bounds.

When is the ball out of bounds? Whose violation is it? Will this horse ever live again?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

A1 releases the ball on a throw-in attempt. B-1 a. deflects ball to A1 who catches it or touches the ball while still standing out of bounds. b. touches the ball while standing out of bounds after B-1's deflected ball hits the floor. c. deflected ball hits the official who is standing out of bounds and then is touched by A1 who is still standing out of bounds.

When is the ball out of bounds? Whose violation is it? Will this horse ever live again?

Different rules, as the OOB violation is for "causing the ball to go OOB." That's not the case for backcourt.

Not if I can help it.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Different rules, as the OOB violation is for "causing the ball to go OOB." That's not the case for backcourt.

Not if I can help it.

Not really. If A lets the ball hit the floor, there is no violation. Same in the BC case play.

Mickey Mantle took Billy Martin to a friend of his in TX to do some deer hunting. Billy had always managed to put Mickey on the wrong end of practical jokes. Mickey told Billy to wait outside while he went in to ask permission. Mickey's friend said he could hunt under one condition. He had a mule that needed to be put down and he didn't have the heart to do it. If Mickey would do it, he could hunt.

He went outside and without saying a word, plucked out his rifle and headed to the pen. "What'd he say?", asked Billy. "He said 'no'", Mickey replied and he proceeded to put down the mule with a single shot. Mickey then hears "Blam! Blam! Blam!" and turns around to hear Billy exclaim, "Let's get out of here, I just got 3 of his horses!"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Not really. If A lets the ball hit the floor, there is no violation. Same in the BC case play.

The difference lies only with the reasoning of the interp; a faulty reliance on the term "cause," which is not in the rule.

Causing the ball to gain BC status is not a violation.