Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond
The only way this is a confusing situation is if you believe the player is no longer in PC during a dribble when the ball is not in contact with his hand.
|
At first, I really liked the reference to player control as a simple way of answering my question.
But there's not a lot about player control in the backcourt rule (some, but not a lot that may be relevant), but there is a little bit more about touching in the rule.
Note: This is the commonly accepted Forum definition, not the NFHS definition:
The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.
NFHS 9-9-1: Backcourt: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been
in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or
was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.
I think that I possibly found a better citation:
4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.
It states "or", not "and", so while 9-3-1-Note may only apply to out of bounds, not backcourt, 4-4-1 does most certainly apply to backcourt, so a dribbling player does not have to have his hand in contact with the ball for a backcourt violation to be called in Situation #2.
I never check for the hand in contact with the ball when a dribbler touches the division line with his foot in this situation, I just sound my whistle for the backcourt violation and move on. Been doing it that way for almost forty years, thinking I was doing it because of 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent. I guess that my interpretation, that I believe to be correct, is based on 4-4-1, not the other citations.
I'm not 100% sure, so would appreciate further discussion (with citations).