APG Video Request

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But then if you judge that possession gained by the Duke player, then the answer would be no.

Why would Team B gaining possession matter in this case?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

I am not arguing anything actually, remember you asked me why this mattered. If a ball touches a player that is touching the backcourt, the ball is in the backcourt by rule. And if a team is in continuous team control when they touch the ball in that circumstance, then they have violated. The Ohio State player caused the ball to be in the back court by beginning a dribble and touching the backcourt, if you deem that team control was never lost by them. First to touch and last to touch is not the only way you can have a backcourt violation.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not arguing anything actually, remember you asked me why this mattered. If a ball touches a player that is touching the backcourt, the ball is in the backcourt by rule. And if a team is in continuous team control when they touch the ball in that circumstance, then they have violated. The Ohio State player caused the ball to be in the back court by beginning a dribble and touching the backcourt, if you deem that team control was never lost by them.

But causing the ball to be in the backcourt isn't a violation.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First to touch and last to touch is not the only way you can have a backcourt violation.

Peace

Actually, it is.

If the OSU player was in the BC when they touched the ball that was previously touched by a Duke player, it is not a violation.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if a team is in continuous team control when they touch the ball in that circumstance, then they have violated. The Ohio State player caused the ball to be in the back court by beginning a dribble and touching the backcourt, if you deem that team control was never lost by them.

Please cite the NFHS rule reference for this.