Backcourt?

[chymechowder]

Is hell an IAABO territory?

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Almost...

For it to be a violation, the rule requires that team A be the last to touch BEFORE and first to touch AFTER the ball gains BC status. One touch can't, in any way, shape, or form, happen both before and after a specific event (gaining BC status).

Tell that to the rule makers.

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt.
RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the must have FC status for the last to touch to apply. The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the ball must have BC status for the first to touch to apply.

Per the rule makers, the ball can have both FC and BC status at the same time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Tell that to the rule makers.

...

The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the must have FC status for the last to touch to apply. The moment/instant A2 touches the ball the ball must have BC status for the first to touch to apply.

Per the rule makers, the ball can have both FC and BC status at the same time.

There are so many things wrong that that interpretation that it just doesn't make any sense. It is generally regarded as incorrect.

Read the actual RULE...it says the opposite. You left out the same two words that the person who wrote that "SITUATION" left out: "before" and "after". Leaving out those words in the process of making a ruling completely changes the meaning of the rule.

In math terms "before" is equivalent to less than a point in time and "after" is equivalent to greater than a point in time....or flip them if you want to talk with respect to the game clock. The point at which the ball gains BC status it time0. For there to be a violation, the rule, translated to an equation requires that "Last Touch" < "BC Status Gained" < "First Touch". Since a number (point in time) can not be both greater than 0 and less than 0, the last touch and the first touch can't be the same touch. But the interpretation allows for a violation when "Last Touch" <= "BC Status Gained" <= "First Touch" where the last touch can be the same as the first touch. Those two equations are not the same.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are so many things wrong that that interpretation that it just doesn't make any sense. It is generally regarded as incorrect.

Read the actual RULE...it says the opposite. You left the same two words that the person who wrote that "SITUATION" left out: "before" and "after". Leaving out those words in the process of making a ruling completely changes the meaning of the rule.

In math terms "before" is equivalent to less than a point in time and "after" is equivalent to greater than a point in time....or flip them if you want to talk with respect to the game clock. The point at which the ball gains BC status it time0. For there to be a violation, the rule, translated to an equation requires that "Last Touch" < "BC Status Gained" < "First Touch". Since a number (point in time) can not be both greater than 0 and less than 0, the last touch and the first touch can't be the same touch. But the interpretation allows for a violation when "Last Touch" <= "BC Status Gained" <= "First Touch" where the last touch can be the same as the first touch. Those two equations are not the same.

If only you had a Telestrator.