Back court violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Art N

A twist on the OP....IF B1 touches the ball on the throw in by A, the throw in ends thus ending the exception mentioned and now you would have a BC violation. I believe this one was on the refresher test this year.

I have yet to figure out the "logic" in that. It just doesn't seem the touching by B should remove the exception.

I agree, and there was a long debate here a few years ago before they clarified this aspect. Some of us thought the exception should apply to any player whose team was not in control. Others did not. The Others were right, in the end.

That's why I'm not willing to apply case plays to situations that have a fundamental difference, no matter how similar they may seem.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, and there was a long debate here a few years ago before they clarified this aspect. Some of us thought the exception should apply to any player whose team was not in control. Others did not. The Others were right, in the end.

That's why I'm not willing to apply case plays to situations that have a fundamental difference, no matter how similar they may seem.

Well, they may now have an interpretation that supports their point-of-view, but that doesn't make them right!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, they may now have an interpretation that supports their point-of-view, but that doesn't make them right!

I debated whether to word that as "The Others won" or the way I did it. Neither really seems accurate.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, and there was a long debate here a few years ago before they clarified this aspect. Some of us thought the exception should apply to any player whose team was not in control. Others did not. The Others were right, in the end.

That's why I'm not willing to apply case plays to situations that have a fundamental difference, no matter how similar they may seem.

That was my post
Throw-in/Backcourt violation?