APG Video Request

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the Duke/OSU play how did the defender cause the ball to go to the backcourt? The ball itself never reached the backcourt. It only attained that status when the OSU player touched the ball.

And that player was in the backcourt.

"Cause" in this situation is not the same "cause" as is used in the OOB situation (where "cause" is clearly defined to include touching a player who is OOB).

"Cause" in the backcourt situation is the same as last to touch the ball before the moment before it touched or was touched by a player or the floor in the backcourt. "Cause" in this context is the player who sent the ball to the backcourt....not the one it touched at the end of the play.

The OSU player didn't cause the ball to come to him when he touched it...the Duke player caused it to be there.

Another way to look at it....Causing to GO vs. causing to BE. It is not a violation for a team to cause the ball to BE in the backcourt unless they also caused it to go into the backcourt and are the first to touch the ball after it does do.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...
The OSU player didn't cause the ball to come to him when he touched it...the Duke player caused it to be there.

....

The Duke player caused the ball to be where?

I know what you are saying but I'm really just playing a game of semantics b/c quite often folks here have a condescending attitude towards anybody who understands the "Struckoff" interpretation of the play as if we're a bunch of idiots.

The wording of the backcourt rules could be tweeked to eliminate any chance of debate, but then folks would be offended because when they see a rule one way and one way only anybody who comes up a possible alternative interpration is also an idiot who now wants the entire rule book re-written for their own benefit.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The Duke player caused the ball to be where?

I know what you are saying but I'm really just playing a game of semantics b/c quite often folks here have a condescending attitude towards anybody who understands the "Struckoff" interpretation of the play as if we're a bunch of idiots.

The wording of the backcourt rules could be tweeked to eliminate any chance of debate, but then folks would be offended because when they see a rule one way and one way only anybody who comes up a possible alternative interpration is also an idiot who now wants the entire rule book re-written for their own benefit.

Causing in this situation is the same as the last person to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status. Since it gained backcourt status the moment it was touched by the OSU player, you have to determine who was the last person to touch it before that point....the Duke player. That player caused it to go into the backcourt.

Simply but, there is nothing to understand about the Struckoff interp....it is fundamentally contrary to the written rule and has never been called that way. There is no possible way to twist it such that it makes sense...an event that happens before a point in time and an event that happens after a point in time can't be the same event. It defies basic logic. They are two separate events. Her interpretation has declared one event to both be before AND after a point in time.

The rule could certainly be rewritten so support her interpretation, but in its current form, it can not result in that interpretation.

[JRutledge]

For the record I do not care about the Struckoff interpretation. This was a college game with NCAA Rules. She does not control the Men's side and never did. I was not even thinking of her NF Interpretation anyway.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For the record I do not care about the Struckoff interpretation. This was a college game with NCAA Rules. She does not control the Men's side and never did. I was not even thinking of her NF Interpretation anyway.

Peace

Agree....but others were bringing it into the discussion.