I was taught that if the ball had achieved backcourt status and you touched it... no violation. But, if your touch was what caused the status to change from frontcourt to backcourt, that was where the violation occured.

Who taught you this and it was based on what?

The old Mary Struckoff interp debate.

But that's not what the rule says.

I believe it was at an Associational training event... could have been VHSL... not certain

Not saying I agree.......

:D I've been taught lots of incorrect things over the years by vets (even in training situations).

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AzpTtKkSNvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When I saw this last night, I thought it was a BC violation as the ball never got to the BC. But then if you judge that possession gained by the Duke player, then the answer would be no. And if you are not sure, then I can live with not making a call. I can see either way that I am able to break down the video.

Peace

Thanks APG for posting the video.

I'd be interested to see the opposite angle from floor level...basically the view the T had. I don't think the Duke player ever gained player control, and it's hard to tell exactly where Craft's feet are when he gains player control.

Why would Team B gaining possession matter in this case?

There is no team control, so when Team A gets the ball back, they are not going to be penalized for now taking possession off the ball and they are already considered to be in the BC.

Peace

OK, that makes sense but what if Team B never does gain possession? In this case weren't they last to touch the ball in the frontcourt?

But if the ball never gained BC status without the touch of the Team A player, what is the status of the ball?

Peace

So you're arguing in favor of the dreaded NFHS interpretation? I can't see a touch being both simultaneously the last in the frontcourt and the first in the backcourt.