Backcourt Violation

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Is anyone going to address these controversial situations:

1. where A1 is near the division line and makes a pass that B1 (while standing in A's front court) bats the ball back towards A1 so that A1 catches the ball in the air while he is still in the back court.

or 2. where A1 is in the back court near the division line, makes a pass cross court towards A2 who is also in the back court, but B1 (who is standing in the frontcourt) deflects the ball, but A2 still catches the ball in the air.

What's the correct call in these two situations. I don't want to join in the argument, I just like to start one and sit back and watch !!!

I think FED has both of these as violations. Most here disagree with the interp -- it came out about 2 years ago.

[DrPete]

Bob is right on both counts according to NFHS interpretations.

1. Both are BC violations because A1 when he touched the ball batted back from the FC to BC (ie ball had front court status), and A2 when he caught the pass that was deflected from the FC to BC, was the last to touch the ball after it had FC status, and the first to touch it in the BC. The reasoning behind these being BC violations is that A1 simultaneously caused the ball to be in the BC after FC and was the first to touch in the BC. Much like the ball hitting a player out of bounds--- he is the one who caused the ball to be out of bounds and thus the OOB violation on him.

2. Bob is also right that most of us disagree with this interp and reasoning as well. But it is what it is.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by DrPete

The reasoning behind these being BC violations is that A1 simultaneously caused the ball to be in the BC after FC and was the first to touch in the BC

Many of us, including myself, disagree with the "Struckoff" interpretation. I do not believe one act can constitute two separate events.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Many of us, including myself, disagree with the "Struckoff" interpretation. I do not believe one act can constitute two separate events.

Not only two separate events but events that, by rule, must occur at different times for it to be a violation...one before it goes into the backcourt and one after. Einstein would need to be brought in to resolve the implications of the the bending of space-time that is necessary for that situation to occur.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not only two separate events but events that, by rule, must occur at different times for it to be a violation...one before it goes into the backcourt and one after. Einstein would need to be brought in to resolve the implications of the the bending of space-time that is necessary for that situation to occur.

Actually, you want McTaggart for before/after, but nobody's ever heard of him.

Also, Einstein seems to have been wrong.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Also, Einstein seems to have been wrong.

You sure?

Faster than light finding faulted in new neutrino test - CBS News

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You sure?

Faster than light finding faulted in new neutrino test - CBS News

Right now it's 2 to 1. I'm on the edge of my seat!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You sure?

Faster than light finding faulted in new neutrino test - CBS News

Well, if that were true, would we have to account for the effect when deciding if a shot were released before the LED lights behind the backboard lit up?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Bob is right on both counts according to NFHS interpretations.

1. Both are BC violations because A1 when he touched the ball batted back from the FC to BC (ie ball had front court status), and A2 when he caught the pass that was deflected from the FC to BC, was the last to touch the ball after it had FC status, and the first to touch it in the BC. The reasoning behind these being BC violations is that A1 simultaneously caused the ball to be in the BC after FC and was the first to touch in the BC. Much like the ball hitting a player out of bounds--- he is the one who caused the ball to be out of bounds and thus the OOB violation on him.

2. Bob is also right that most of us disagree with this interp and reasoning as well. But it is what it is.

Dr. Pete: Butt out! You said you were going to sit back and watch!

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Dr. Pete: Butt out! You said you were going to sit back and watch!

I couldn't resist getting some of you guys all riled up!