Backcourt

[Rob1968]

We do tend to re-hash this on a regular basis.

The factor that the ball still has A-team frontcourt status, after B's deflection, while it is in the air, followed by A1 touching it, while A1 is in the A-team backcourt, can follow two divergent logic strains:

The first is that A1's touching simultaneously equates to A1 being the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and first to touch it in the backcourt, thus causing a team A backcourt violation. The companion statement is that if A1 allows the ball to touch the court, or a B player, in the backcourt, before A1 touches the ball, there is no violation.

The second logic strain is that B1 is the last to touch the ball while it has A-team frontcourt status, thus interrupting the elements that would cause a backcourt violation.

Both logic paths have their supporters, the first being the NF stated understanding, which is not presently in the Case Book.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

....can follow two divergent logic strains:

The first is that A1's touching simultaneously equates to A1 being the last to touch the ball while it has frontcourt status, and first to touch it in the backcourt, thus causing a team A backcourt violation. The companion statement is that if A1 allows the ball to touch the court, or a B player, in the backcourt, before A1 touches the ball, there is no violation.

The second logic strain is that B1 is the last to touch the ball while it has A-team frontcourt status, thus interrupting the elements that would cause a backcourt violation.

Both logic paths have their supporters, the first being the NF stated understanding, which is not presently in the Case Book.

The problem with the NF stated understanding is that it is fundamentally impossible for a single event (the final touch) to be both BEFORE and AFTER (the terms of the rule) a reference point (the ball gaining backcourt status). The NF interpretation pure horseshit and can't be defended with a straight face after reading the rule.

[OKREF]

So what's the answer? My initial thought is that this isn't a violation, because Team B was the last to touch it in the frontcourt, and the ball hasn't touched the floor in the backcourt. When Team A touches the ball in the backcourt, does the ball simultaneously have backcourt and frontcourt status?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So what's the answer? My initial thought is that this isn't a violation, because Team B was the last to touch it in the frontcourt, and the ball hasn't touched the floor in the backcourt. When Team A touches the ball in the backcourt, does the ball simultaneously have backcourt and frontcourt status?

By rule, not a violation.

By old interp that most people aren't aware of, it's a violation. The ruling in that interp was flawed, in that they said it was a violation because A "caused the ball to have BC status." Causing the ball to have BC status is never a violation.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

By rule, not a violation.

By old interp that most people aren't aware of, it's a violation. The ruling in that interp was flawed, in that they said it was a violation because A "caused the ball to have BC status." Causing the ball to have BC status is never a violation.

Ok, that's what I thought. Thanks