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.