2015-16 The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...
 

I figure that it's time to post "the list" for the benefit of new Forum members that may never have seen this before. "The list" celebrates it's tenth season. Enjoy.

The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules

This is a list of high school basketball rules that are often misunderstood by coaches, players, and parents, and fans. I developed this list over the past thirty years, officiating thousands of basketball games, listening to erroneous comments from players, coaches, parents, and fans, and thinking to myself, "I wish I could stop the game and explain the real rule to them". This list is meant to educate those players, coaches, parents, and fans.

For example. A player is dribbling the ball in the backcourt and a fan is yelling, "Three seconds". Or, a player is inbounding the ball and a parent yells, "He's stepping on the boundary line". How many times have things like this happened to you? Don't you just want to blow the whistle, stop the game, and say, "There can't be a three second violation until the ball is in the frontcourt", or, "The player can step on the line, but not over the line".

I started working on this list back in 2005, for a presentation that I was making to a college level basketball coaching class after I was asked to give a lecture on the most misunderstood basketball rules. The list has evolved many times over the years.

The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules - Part I ...
 

The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules

Note: Based on NFHS (National Federation of State High School Associations) rules.

It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket. On most layups, the ball is going up immediately after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up, and is not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference, nor is it goaltending, and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard, during a tap, or a try, so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot, and accidentally slaps the backboard, it is neither a violation, nor is it a technical foul.

The front, top, sides, and bottom of the backboard are all in play. The ball cannot legally pass over a rectangular backboard from either direction. The back of a backboard is out of bounds, as well as the supporting structures.

The traveling rule is one of the most misunderstood rules in basketball. To start a dribble, the ball must be released before the pivot foot is lifted. On a pass, or a shot, the pivot foot may be lifted, but may not return to the floor before the ball is released. A player may slide on the floor while trying to secure a loose ball until that player’s momentum stops. At that point that player cannot attempt to get up, or rollover. A player securing a ball while on the floor cannot attempt to stand up unless that player starts a dribble. A player in this situation may also pass, shoot, or request a timeout. If the player is flat on his, or her, back, that player may sit up without violating.

A player must be holding the ball (with one very rare exception) in order to travel. A player can't travel while dribbling, while tapping the ball, while fumbling it, or while trying to recover a loose ball. During a fumble the player is not in control of the ball, and therefore, cannot be called for a traveling violation. A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball is unintentionally dropped, or slips from a player’s grasp. After a player has ended a dribble and fumbled the ball, that player may recover the ball without violating. Any steps taken during the recovery of a fumble are not traveling, regardless of how far the ball goes, and the amount of advantage that is gained. It is always legal to recover a fumble, even at the end of a dribble, however that player cannot begin a new dribble, which would be an illegal dribble violation. A player who fumbles the ball when receiving a pass may legally start a dribble.

The shooter can retrieve his or her own airball, if the referee considers it to be a shot attempt. The release ends team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked, is unable to release the ball, and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in this situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot, and play continues. If, in this situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne shooter returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and touches the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

Palming, or carrying, is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles a second time. There is no restriction as to how high a player may bounce the ball, provided the ball does not come to rest in a player’s hand. Steps taken during a dribble are not traveling, including several that are sometimes taken when a high dribble takes place. It is not possible for a player to travel during a dribble.

A player inbounding the ball may step on, but not over the line. During a designated spot throwin, the player inbounding the ball must keep one foot on, or over, the three-foot wide designated spot. An inbounding player is allowed to jump, or move one or both feet. A player inbounding the ball may move backward as far as the five-second time limit, or space allows. If player moves outside the three-foot wide designated spot, it is a throwin violation, not traveling. In gymnasiums with limited space outside the sidelines, and endlines, a defensive player may be asked to step back no more than three feet. A player inbounding the ball may “dribble” the ball on the out-of-bounds area prior to making a throwin. After a goal, or awarded goal, the team not credited with the score shall make the throw-in from any point outside the end line. A team retains this “run the endline” privilege if a timeout is called during the dead ball period after the goal. Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in, or may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate outside the boundary line.

The defender may not break the boundary plane during a throwin until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass. If the defender breaks the boundary plane during a throwin before the ball has been released on a throw-in pass, the defender’s team will receive a team delay warning, or if the team has already been warned for one of the four delay situations, this action would result in a team technical foul. If the defender contacts the ball after breaking the boundary plane, it is a player technical foul and a team delay warning will be recorded. If the defender breaks the boundary plane, and fouls the inbounding player, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team delay warning will be recorded. It is an intentional personal foul if the defender fouls the inbounding player, even without breaking the boundary plane, however, in this specific case, there is no delay of game warning because the defender did not break the boundary plane.

The inbounding player does not have a plane restriction, but has five seconds to release the ball, and it must come directly onto the court. The ball can always be passed into the backcourt during a throwin. This situation is not a backcourt violation.

If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he, or she, can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

After a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throwin from an out of bounds spot nearest the violation. This is especially true for a backcourt violation, where the ball may not necessarily be put in play at the division line, but, rather, is always put back in play at the spot nearest the violation.

A moving screen is not in and of itself a foul; illegal contact must occur for a foul to be called. If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction, and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step, and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed, and distance, of the defender.

It is legal use of hands to accidentally hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler, or a shooter, on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul.

Reaching in is not a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in is, by itself, nothing. If illegal contact does occur, it’s probably a holding foul, an illegal use of hands foul, or a hand check foul. When a player, in order to stop the clock, does not make a legitimate play for the ball, holds, pushes, or grabs away from the ball, or uses undue roughness, the foul is an intentional foul.

Over the back is not a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called. A rebounding player, with an inside position, while boxing out, is not allowed to push back, or displace, an opponent, which is a pushing foul.

The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules - Part II ...
 

A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away, or duck, to absorb contact, provided he, or she, has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court, and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards, or sideways, to maintain a legal guarding position, and may even have one or both feet off the floor when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. If the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which is a blocking foul.

The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and does not constitute a foul. Contact, which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive, or offensive moves, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe. Contact which does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal defensive, or offensive, movements should be considered incidental.

A ten-second count continues when the defense deflects, or bats, the ball in the backcourt. When a dribbler is advancing the ball into the frontcourt, the ball maintains backcourt status until both feet, and the ball, touch entirely in the frontcourt.

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted, by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt, or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted, by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not a backcourt violations.

During a throwin, or jump ball, any player; or a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his, or her, frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor, and return to the floor with one, or both, feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing, and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt, or the backcourt. These three situations are not backcourt violations.

The closely guarded rule is in effect in frontcourt only, when a defender is within six feet of the ball handler. Up to three separate five-second counts may occur on the same ball handler: holding, dribbling, and holding. The count continues even if defenders switch. The five-second count ends when a dribbler gets his, or her, head, and shoulders, ahead of the defender.

The intent of the three-second rule is to not allow an offensive player in the lane to gain an advantage. There is no three-second count between the release of a shot, and the control of a rebound, at which time a new count starts. There is no three-second count during a throwin. There is no three-second count while the ball is in the backcourt. There is a three-second count during an interrupted dribble. There is a three-second count while an offensive player has one foot in the lane, and one foot outside of the lane, and the three-second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane. It’s a violation for a player to step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation. Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in, or moves immediately to try for goal.

The head coach may request, and be granted, a timeout if his, or her, player is holding, or dribbling, the ball; or during a dead ball period. A player saving the ball in the air can ask for, and be granted, a timeout even if that player is going out of bounds. The key is whether, or not, the player has control of the ball.

On free throws, there is a maximum of two offensive players, and four defensive players, in the six marked lane spaces. The defense must be in the first marked lane spaces, above the neutral zone marks, on all free throws. The offense must not occupy the first marked lane spaces, above the neutral zone marks. For free throws when there are no rebounders in the marked lane spaces, i.e. technical fouls, and intentional fouls, the nine nonshooters shall remain behind the free throw line extended, and behind the three point arc.

Players in marked lane spaces must not move into the lane until the ball is released by the free-throw shooter. The shooter, and the players behind the three point arc, must wait until the ball hits the rim, or the backboard, before entering the lane, or penetrating the three point arc. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out the free thrower shall not cross the free-throw line until the ball contacts the ring, or the backboard. In addition, the free throw shooter must cause the ball to enter the basket, or touch the ring, before the free throw ends. During a free throw, no opponent, including bench personnel, may disconcert the free thrower.

A held ball occurs when opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness. Action of arms, and elbows, resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or moving to prevent a held ball, or loss of control, shall not be considered excessive. It is a violation for a player to excessively swing his, or her, arms, or elbows, even without contacting an opponent.

Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg, or foot. An unintentionally kicked ball is never illegal, regardless of how far the ball goes, and who recovers it. It is also illegal to hit the ball with a fist.

A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game, shall not re-enter (with rare exceptions) before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his, or her, replacement. In other words, a player who has been replaced must sit a tick of the clock, however, a player doesn’t have to play a tick of the clock.

Players may not participate while wearing jewelry. Religious medals, or medical alert medals, are not considered jewelry. A religious medal must be taped, and worn under the uniform. A medical alert medal must be taped, and may be visible.

Headbands, wristbands, sleeves, and tights, shall be the solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the jersey, and the same color for each item, and all participants. Anything worn on the arm, and/or the leg (except a knee brace), is defined as a sleeve. Only a single item may be worn on the head (with no extensions), and/or on each wrist. Sweatbands must be worn below the elbow. Rubber, cloth, or elastic bands, of any color, may be used to control hair. Undershirts must be similar in color to the uniform jersey, and shall not have frayed, or ragged edges.

Officials are not required to explain judgment calls, but they may explain some calls if approached by the head coach in a respectful manner. Officials have been instructed to call technical fouls for profanity, unsporting acts, excessive complaints, or verbal abuse.

Officials are on the court to be the only unbiased arbiters of the game. Officials are not concerned with who wins, or loses, but only fairness, and safety. Everyone else in that gym cares about winning, and therefore, cannot look at the game objectively. Players commit fouls, and violations; officials view those infractions, judge the action, and then apply the rules of the game to what they had viewed. The rules then determine the penalty.

Revised 10/3/15

Thank you! I appreciated going through each of these. Had some real food for thought, especially around backcourt violations as it pertains to throw ins.

I'm having a bit of a hard time with this one. Lets start with the throw-in. If the ball is tipped, the throw-in has ended, so all throw-in exceptions no longer exist. The ball location is the same as when it last touched a player, so if an offensive player in his/her front court tips the ball, the ball location is is the front court. If it is tipped into the backcourt and retrieved by an offensive player, I'm seeing this as a backcourt violation.

Exact same train of thought for a shot....

The requirement for "player control inbounds" has not been met in either case.

The throw-in ending does not mean you have possession in the FC which is required for a violation for a BC to take place. Touching or tipping the ball does not establish possession. And on a shot if the ball is tipped and tapped around does not establish control in either part of the court. The rule states possession, has to be established in the FC then be the first to touch in the BC after you were the last to touch in the FC. You are buying into the very myth that this point is trying to get you and others out of thinking is the rule.

Peace

There are four things that must happen in order to have a backcourt violation. You're missing the big one, which others have alluded to.

The backcourt and team control rules are poorly written and have caused headaches for those on this forum, including myself. However, the NFHS has made clear that, despite what the rule may or may not say, that team control must have been established inbounds in order to have a BC violation.

The rule for backcourt does not dictate player control inbounds. It says "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."

Per 4-12-2, a team is in control of the ball:
a. When a player of the team is in control.
b. While a live ball is being passed among teammates.
c. During an interrupted dribble.
d. When a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.

So we have team control during a throw-in, a pass which is still team control, a tip in the front court by the offense which means the ball has front court location ("A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."). All the elements of backcourt are present.

On a shot, I can see what you all are saying. There is indeed no team control. No so for a throw-in....

The NFHS has put out correspondence stating TC on a throw-in is only for the purposes of adjudicated fouls during the throw-in. It is not "true" TC.

If that is the case, then that would be the missing link. Thank you!

You also need to read Rule 9-9 that says very clearly:

You do not have TC in the FC by touching the basketball. You have to first possess the basketball to establish TC in the FC. A throw-in only has TC out of bounds, which is not apart of the rule to have a BC violation.

If you read your own reference in 4-12-2a, that says:

Ending a throw-in does not automatically establish TC or even player control.

Peace

Yes you do. Certainly not on a throw in, but it is possible to touch the ball in the FC without controlling it to have FC status.

Case book 9.9.1 C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt A2 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt where it touches the floor. A2 recovers in the backcourt.

RULING: Violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court.

A1 is in backcourt passes ball, deflects off official standing in FC then bounces back to the BC. A2 retrieves ball in BC.

Violation.

Before any BC violation is possible, player/team control must be established inbounds, not in the FC as the rule book states. After that occurs, then BC violations are possible.

Yes, that is the case. The rule is an absolute mess, but it is what it is. Until team control has been established on the playing court (a player holding or dribbling a live ball), a BC violation is not possible.

Essentially, there are two types of team control without either being clearly defined.

Pseudo Team Control starts when the ball is placed at the disposal of a thrower.

True Team Control starts when a player first obtains player control inbounds.

Both end at the same time....when the ball is released on a try, the other team gains control, etc.

Psuedo Team Control is all that is needed for a team control foul.

True Team Control is needed for any other case.

4-19-7 is the definition of team control foul. It says in part that it is a team control foul if the throw in team fouls from the start of the throw in until player control is established inbounds. As noted by BNR, it is only there because they dont want the throw in team shooting free throws if it commits a foul prior to the ball being possessed.

This is a completely separate animal from team control inbounds. Once the ball is in control of a player somewhere inbounds team control in the court/inbounds begins. Until that happens backcourt issues/violations do not come in to play.

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing.

You just have established control in the FC before you can have a BC violation according to the rule. And you must not be one of the exceptions stated in the rule either.

And that casebook play you mentioned does not go along with the written rule. When all else fails, I am going with the rulebook and what it states.

Peace

Having status and committing a violation are not the same thing, as you state. But determining the status of the ball lends itself to determining whether a violation has been made.

The case OKREF states goes along perfectly with the rules. There is team control. The ball being touched in the front court gives the ball front court status while still in team control. The ball goes into the backcourt after having established frontcourt status and is first touched by a member of the same team. Backcourt violation is the call.

You were originally talking about a throw in and how simply touching the ball in the FC after the throw in does not establish team control. As you said, the ball's status doesnt necessarily mean a violation. The ball is in the FC when it is tipped on the throw in but there is no team control yet. At some point there has to be team control in the FC for there to be a violation. The case play okref cited doesnt deal with a throw in/tip etc. didnt really apply to what you were trying to say.

Having said that, the case play he cited is consistent with the written rule. A1 has the ball in the BC (player and team control). He passes the ball toward A2 in FC. ball is in air---team control still exists. A2 deflects it back. When the ball hits A2 there is still team control and the ball is now in FC. It goes back to A1 and he first to touch it. Violation. 9-1-1. The BC rule only requires team control to have been in FC at some time. Player control IN the FC isnt required. There has to be player control somewhere inbounds before we have team control but it, team control, can start in the BC.

Backcourt ...
 

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.

The case book is the interpretation of the rules book. I go to the case book when it explicitly says if X happens Y is the result.

Yes it does. Team control continues until the opponent secures control. Control in the BC, followed by a pass to the FC that touches a member of Team A, would establish team control in the FC. The casebook play goes along just fine with the written rule.

There is TC for foul purposes and there is TC for other purposes like a BC violation.

Again, to have a BC violation you have to have TC while in the FC first. You cannot have TC in the FC until you possess the ball as a team.

And if the casebook and the rule goes along just fine, why are people confused with how the rule is written? Because this was never the case before the rule about TC came into play for fouls. And the NF also clearly said that the only reason they change the rule in the first place was for foul purposes, not to change the rule on the BC violation.

Peace

The caseplay that OKREF cited has been in the rule book since before the team control mess. And if it wasn't accurate, the NFHS would have changed it. Player control in the FC is not necessarily a requirement for a backcourt violation. As long as PC had been established inbounds at some point, BC violation rules are in effect.

Yes, you must have TC. You do not necessarily need player control. A pass from the BC to FC that touches a member of Team A would establish TC in the FC by rule, assuming initial player control was established in the BC.

I agree. And I also agree that it's confusing.

When I first started, RefMag or someone had the "three criteria" for a BC violation. The first was "TC in the FC." While that's technically correct (or was at the time, before there was TC on a throw-in), it was too confusin -- too many though it meant, literally, that someone on the team had control of the ball in the FC.

So, I immediately translated it (to myself) as "four criteria" -- 1) TC, 2) Ball reaches FC, 3) Last to touch before ball goes to BC, 4) first to touch after ball goes to BC. (and, note that the last two do not require that the first touch is in the FC and the second is in the BC).

Because of the rule change, the first criteria is now "PC inbounds"

From My Hard Drive ...
 

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.

You must first have PC to have TC. Actually you have PC on a throw-in which is why you can request a time-out during a throw-in and you. Then after you have PC then you have TC. But for this rule, it says you must have established control on the FC, which does not start until a player has gained control of the ball, which requires a player to have control of the ball (Which again is stated in 4-12-2a says: "When a player of the team is in control). Tipping the ball does not start TC on the court.

You can keep telling me what the casebook says, but for some strange reason, there is not even and example of this play in the Simplified and Illustrated Rules book which shows several examples of why we do not call a BC violation until control is established onto the court.

Again, Rule 9-1-1 says:

And most of all in Rule 9-1-3 says:

You do not have TC in the front court during a throw-in until possession.

The original question was a person having a misunderstanding with this rule. You IMO are trying to argue the point that causes the confusion.

Honestly I do not care what a casebook play says when they clearly did not use their Simplified and Illustrated Rules book to back up that interpretation. And if you have been paying attention, a lot of people here have had issues with that interpretation for the very same reason I have as well.

Peace

JRut, you are making an argument that is correct for a throw-in. No one is refuting your point on that basis. However, your notion (at least the way I understand it) that player control must exist in the FC before a BC violation can happen is simply not true. The case play in question has nothing to do with a throw-in. If true team control has existed in the BC and a pass to the FC touches a member of Team A, then that establishes team control in the FC, which is the requirement for a violation.

A team is in control until the opponent secures control.

The caseplay has nothing to do with what the official was having a problem with. The "myth" he did not understand was about a throw-in. Not sure what you are trying to argue here.

I also quoted the actual rule. I did not make a claim and leave it alone. I quoted the actual rule. The rule says that you must have TC in the FC before you can have a BC violation. The rule says TC is not established in the court until player possession (which is the same thing that starts PC).

If it is simply not true, then what rule are you reading? BTW, all we are talking about anyway is the a backcourt violation. That is why you cannot have a violation for a thrower-in to throw the ball to the BC and be touched by their teammate. If that was the case, then you would be right. ;)

And if you having not been paying attention, there were a couple of other people saying the exact same thing. That is why I quoted the actual rule. This is not my first rodeo man.

Peace

You specifically stated that the case play was wrong and that you would never enforce it as such, and everyone on here disagreed with you. None of the evidence you have shown indicates that the case play is incorrect. This ain't "my first rodeo" either.

You do not have to have player control in the frontcourt to have a backcourt violation. You have to have team control.

I believe the case play is wrong. I am not the first or the last person to say that. It does not fit with the rule they have in place and yes it came up only when the rule was added for TC for a throw-in for foul purposes. Also the NF came out and said they had some issues with their wording and that only the rules on TC for a throw-in were meant for foul purposes. That is why they had to make that statement after the fact.

Can you show the rule that says how TC is establihed?

I will do it for you.

Rule 4-12-2a says: "When a player of a team is in control."

What am I missing here?

Oh, Rule 4-12-1 says: "A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding, dribbling a live ball......"

Touching a ball does not establishes control. You have to have touching before possession, but touching a ball does not mean you are holding or dribbling a ball.

And Rule 9-9-1 says: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the front court......

You have to have player control before you have team control. Player control is restrictive to when you can call a timeout, what type of foul is called and if you can have a closely guarded count. Team control does not require player control after team control has been established, which is why you can have a BC violation.

Peace

You already had the required player control in the backcourt, which established true TC.

4-12-3b Team control continues until an opponent secures control.

The touch in the frontcourt by Team A establishes TC in the FC in the case play in question.

What does 9.9.1 C (Not 9.9.1 D) have to do with the question the Geof brought up?

This was a ball passed by a thrower (from a throw-in), and the play or question from Geof was off of a throw-in (Which again we are in a rules myth thread) not a pass from a person on the court.

What part of having control in the FC is a myth with the BC violation rule?

Peace

Because OKREF refuted your not entirely correct post on the first page of this thread by citing this exact case play that we are debating.

The only reason I posted the case play was because of the quote above. I was never talking about a throw in. Just pointing out the fact that TC had been established, a pass was made, TC still exists, the ball was touched by A in the front court, establishing TC status by A in the FC, A was then the first to touch the ball in the BC, resulting in a violation. Rut, yes on a throw in there must be player control (which means TC) before a BC can happen, but your quote that I have highlighted doesn't apply unilaterally.

Now you are adding stuff. We were only talking about a throw-in. And still you have to have PC before you can have any TC at any point. Now if it does not apply as you say, what did you show that even applies to this case?

Peace

Rut, what are you missing? You said this. The case play refutes what you are saying. It can be possible to have TC in FC without a player actually possessing the basketball, but not on a throw in, but in the case play it is possible.

I understand that the original question was about a throw in, but your blanket statement is only half right. You need to re-read my original post. I said that the case play didn't apply to a throw in.

I was not making a blanket statement about anything. We were only talking about a throw-in, specific to a question that was asked by Geof. We were not talking about all situations for a BC violation. It seems to me you pulled out something and tried to make a point while not reading the entire conversation. I was answering a question about a throw-in. But even what I said still applies to all situations. Because if you did not first establish player control, you will not have team control. But that was not the point of the comments you quoted. ;)

It is like I made a comment about requirements to be a US Senator but you are talking about what it takes to be President. Well, some of the basic requirements are the exact same, but there are some differences. I was not talking (and it is obvious if you read all the comments) about a player that has established TC in-bounds (FC or BC status) and the ball being tipped around and causing a violation. We were only talking about a throw-in (very specific) and why it would not be a violation if Team A touches or taps a ball in the FC and goes and touches it in the BC. There were like 4 other people that made the very same point but used different words.

Peace

OKREF posted a case play that contradicted a blanket statement you made, and you proceeded to state your disagreement with that case play. It really is that simple.

No hard feelings, but that is what happened.

Jeff was talking specifically about TC after a throw-in, which was a question brought up by Geof. TC control does not carry over from the throw-in, it must be established inbounds before there can be a BC violation. That's how I read Jeff's initial response.

OKREF was responding to Rut's statement.

He posted the case play that contradicts this statement, which is the play we have been debating.

Well, after a throw-in you don't have TC simply by touching the ball in the FC. This discussion was prompted by a statement about throw ins.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

That is great, but OKREF tends to not read the entire conversation when he response to stuff. He can give all the case plays he wants, but at least can we talk about the actual conversation? The case play he was discussing was not about a throw-in, which is again is the "myth" we are trying to dispell and clarify the actual rule. I did not realize there was an confusion about a BC violation when the ball is already in play.

Peace

If you were so concerned with what the "actual conversation" was, then I'm confused why you responded with your disagreement of the case play in question.

I am trying to figure out why you were even involved in this conversation in the first place when you did not read the actual question that was commented on?

Peace

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

I am involved because I disagreed with your erroneous opinion of the case play in question. It's not that complicated.

Again, what was erroneous about my opinion? We were talking about a thrown-in rules as it relates to a violation for BC. We were not talking about what you assumed to be a unilateral comment (which I am trying to figure out why my statement was assumed to be unilateral anyway, but happens to apply to even all parts of the rule BTW). I was answering a question which was answered by others the same way, but you are going after my comments as if I was giving and opinion when the rules were actually referenced.

OK.

What was erroneous about your opinion was addressed in the case play that we have been debating. You made a blanket statement, whether or not you intended to, and you disagreed with the case play despite the fact that it makes sense given the rule and I pointed out the relevant rules to you.

No one is disagreeing with you on your points about a throw-in. But you explicitly stated that the case play was erroneous, and that's what we have been debating. I don't know what you don't understand about that.

The caseplay he was discussing at first was the one about the throw-in. That is the one I was discussing. But again, what did that have to do with my comment you quoted? The comment you keep quoting actually applies across the board. You cannot have Team Control until a player has control of the ball. That is basic in the rule. Not partial to a throw-in situation.

Here is an example:

A1 has the ball in Team A's FC. A1 passes a ball to A2, which is stolen and possessesd by B1 who then dribbles the ball. A3 knocks the ball away from B1 off of B1's leg. As the ball rolls away from B1, A3 hits the ball into Team A's BC, first touching the ball in their FC and then again in their BC where A3 gets possession of the basketball.

There is no BC violation as Team A or A3 never got player control of the ball until the ball was in their FC despite touching the basketball.

So until you have PC you do not have TC. Unless you can show me some rule that contradicts that, I will be waiting (well not really).

Peace

Rut, it's really simple. Once Team A establishes true TC in the BC, they retain control until Team B secures control. So, the pass to the FC that touches a Team A player would establish TC in the FC, even if that player does not gain control. It's not that difficult to understand, and that's what the rule is.

I really don't understand what you don't get. You disagreed with an official NFHS case play that doesn't contradict the rules, and that's why were are having this debate. It doesn't make sense for you to keep acting like that's not the case. Likewise, it doesn't really make sense that we're having this argument either.

When will the two of you realized that one of you is talking about a throwin and the other is talking about a ball that is already inbounds? :rolleyes:

I realized this a long time ago and as far as I am concerned this is settled. Don't really care at this point.

Peace

Maybe one of these days you will realize that we were talking about a throw-in and the first reference was to a throw-in in the case play and that your boy changed it after the fact, you might "get it."

There is nothing to understand when we were only talking about a throw-in play from day one. Thanks for the advice. My position is not going to change on this, no matter how many times you post this. You must have PC before you can have TC at all times in our game. And you must have TC in the FC at some point to have a BC violation across the board!!!

Peace

If you didn't really care, you wouldn't keep arguing. And if the case play that OKREF posted was irrelevant to the original discussion, why did you respond saying that it didn't go with the rule?

Maybe one of these days you'll realize that the only reason this thread got off topic was because you made a erroneous blanket statement and were correctly called out for it.

Either you haven't read what I've posted that addresses this, or you just don't want to admit that the rule supports my position and the case play.

Is there really a reason for this thread to be open anymore?

Having a discussion in this board is not about caring. Not a single thing I will do this year will be affected by this conversation.

You obviously care because you keep trying to debate an issue that was never involved in the OP as if I am going to admit to something or change my position. Then again, life will go on either way.

The case play (which he went back and edited) involved the case play that most people here have disagreed with and I commented on.

This is a Sunday afternoon after my football season has basically ended.

Peace

There is nothing to admit. The case play (not originally posted) posted has nothing to do with a throw-in. We were talking about a throw-in. My comment unilaterally applies to all BC violations. You have to have PC in order to have TC to then have TC in the FC. If you do not have TC in the FC, all taps and touches does not give you FC status on a throw-in until you have PC at some point and then TC in the BC.

Nothing to admit when that is the rule across the board.

Peace

This is what happen---

Jeff responded to Geof's comment about throw in and BC. He said a tip in the front court does not give TC. If you read his first sentence and the sentence after that comment you would realize he was clearly talking about a throw in. OFREF saw the tip statement and perceived it to be a blanket statement. He accidentally took it out of context and cited a case play dealing with a player inbounds. It had nothing to do with the throwin.

Jeff, instead of saying we are talking about a throw in and that play has nothing to do with this, said the play was wrong and didnt follow the rule. I posted because i thought jeff was saying that that play was wrong in every which way. The case play was correct and followed the rules just not the rules in the discussion. I realized after seeing his other posts that he was still thinking throw in. You were still thinking that he was claiming the case play was wrong as it existed. I dont think either of you were ever on the same page as to what each was saying.
so... OKREF cited a play that didnt apply. Jeff could have said that instead of it was wrong... Life is too short. lets talk about something else.

Life is short, but why talk about something else? If the person does not realize that we were even talking about one part of the rule after pointed out to him over and over, that is not my issue.

And then he tried to suggest that my statement did not apply to all situations, when it does. I am still trying to figure out that even on the situation he is discussing where PC is not first required before you have TC?

Peace

I know when you say "my statement" you are meaning all of your sentences and dealing with a throw in. Others have interpreted your "statement" to be only the sentence which said something like "a tip in the front court cannot give TC in the FC." If the ball is inbounds in PC already a tip can give TC in the FC. That is what the other folks have been saying. I've seen what they have been saying and what you have been saying. I just dont think you guys are seeing what each is saying....

You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a throw-in (or jump ball) you have to first establish TC in-bounds (because you have TC out of bounds on a throw-in for foul purposes), you cannot have a BC violation until some type of control happens in-bounds. Touching the ball does not start that time. Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

I see clearly what he is saying, he just does not realize we were talking about a throw-in and then tried to suggest a comment I made did not apply, while not giving a reason of why it was wrong. You have to have PC first to establish TC. After you have established TC, you do not have to be in continuous PC to maintain TC and which is why you can have a BC violation when the ball is simply tipped away from an offensive player based on who and when the ball is touched.

I am not backing down from this point. I am simply not.

Peace

[QUOTE=JRutledge;969295]You either had TC or you didn't have TC. On a Talking about a play where TC has already been established is not what we were talking about.

That was not what the original discussion was about. But that is what they switched to. you did not recognize that they switched to that. they did not recognize that you did not switch to that. How's that...:) the end for me.

The conversation switched? I went back and looked and the comment that I was quoted for making took place in post #12. Geof had a question about his misunderstanding of the OP in post #5. Billy used the first 3 posts to complete his article. Where did the conversation change? OKREF posted a comment on post #13 and even had to edit his post (which I did not see immediately) and tried to suggest that this comment was incorrect:

I am still trying to figure out why that statement is incorrect when discussing a throw-in?

Peace

The case play I referenced is irrelevant to the original question. I was just pointing out that what he said about a touch was not 100% correct. That's all.

Why is it not 100% correct? If you have not established TC, you do not gain control by a touch. On a throw-in you still have to gain TC which starts by PC.

Peace

Nevermind.

The TC was when A1 was dribbling in the backcourt. TC was maintained through the touch in the FC and the ball returning to the BC. TC was not established by touching the ball in the FC.

If A1 had been dribbling in the BC, lost the ball into the FC, it was touched by B2, then touched by A2, then bounded in the BC and retrieved by A1, it would still be a BC violation.

Again, we were talking about a Throw-in, that is why the statement was made. And the statement was only about a throw-in. But since we you want to pick nits, I will wait for why it is not 100% correct.

But you still have to have TC which can cross the BC to the FC.

I am not seeing at all your point. You have not stated why it is not correct. If it isn't correct, what about it is not correct?

If you are trying to suggest that having the ball in the BC and having TC has anything to do with a touch on a pass in the FC, then you really are stretching what I said. Then again, this is your point of view that often comes from weird places IMO.

Peace

When they say team control must be established in the FC they are saying that before you can have BC violation there must be team control in the FC. They are not saying that team control has to begin in the FC.

And that also means that B did not gain TC by the touch either.

This is why I am completely lost by his point. It makes no sense to me.

Peace

Rut, I read this as you saying there had to be a player possessing the the ball in the FC. Yes you must first possess the ball. This possession could happen in the BC. Then when the ball is passed from BC to FC and A only touches the ball, and goes BC and A touches it it's a BC. Please remember, I am not talking about a throw in.

Rut, A5 has the ball in back court(which means they have team control) A5 passes the ball to A3 standing in the front court, the pass bounds off of A3's leg, hits B1 in the leg, A3 reaches for the ball and knocks the ball into the back court, A5 is the first to touch the ball in the back court.

This is a backcourt violation, Team A still had team control because team B never possessed the ball. Team A was last to touch in front court and first to touch in back court.

No case play is 100% correct either. Many statements are contextual. You missed the context of the statement. Let it go.

Really?? :rolleyes:

Duh!!! :eek:

OK, but we were only talking about a throw-in as it relates to the ball being tapped and bouncing around from the FC to the BC. This would not apply if the throw-in pass was touched in the BC first or only.

Yes you did. We never were talking about any other kind of situation. That is why I am confused as to why you are trying to hold on to what is or is not 100% correct.

Peace

These kinds of responses are why I will never, ever have any kind of respect for you. I just said I miss read what you typed and you come across like you do. There are a lot of people on here who, when they have something to say I really take it in a listen to, however you are certainly not one of them. It's all good though, have a great day.

Then do not have respect for me. You and the other guys insisting on picking a nit like this, is the reason I really do not care much for what you would say anyway. You did not read the conversation and tried to hold on to what was "wrong" about the conversation. You also did not read the other comments by others that said the same thing but some strange reason only picked on my comments.

You will get over it. If you don't, not my problem.

Peace

What is this supposed to mean? :confused:

Rut, you flat out said that the case play that OKREF posted was wrong, even though the rules support it. It has nothing to do with the "throw-in." You said it was wrong, and then got defensive.

OK, if you say so. Again you did not read the situation and started talking about it without knowing the context. That is what Cameron was saying. It is also obvious that you did not know he edited his post and reference either.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Peace

And it is clear that you refuse to take any blame for posting a blanket statement and an erroneous opinion about a case play.

Good day to you.

It is not an erroneous statement. You need PC before you have TC, that is the rule as listed.

There is a reason you are on this island with your friend alone.

Peace

Just to refresh your selective memory, this is what you posted.

This statement is not correct. And more than just OKREF and I disagreed with you on this thread. I am not "on this island." In fact, I would argue that you are on an island trying to say that the case play isn't right. Nice try.

Why is this thread still open? To watch a p*ssing match?

Even OKREF backed off of his statements when he realized he was arguing something that was not at issue. And he changed or edited his post from what he originally said. But you did not see that either (he admitted to this).

You continue to keep up the good fight. ;)

Peace

Good for him. Maybe you should follow his lead and admit that you were wrong.

I wasn't wrong. He did not understand the conversation. I was responding to that misunderstanding (he changed the play once again).

Keep fighting the good fight.

Peace

You do no wrong ever on this forum.

If you really don't care, stop responding.

I think what I do on this forum is the last of my concern.

I respond because I can.

Keep up the good fight.

Peace

The case play cited had nothing to with Geof's confusion about a BC violation subsequent to a throw-in. Have you acknowledge that yet?

Correct. It has everything to do with Rut's blanket statement. And we are still here because Rut said that case play "did not go with the rules," and I responded. If it had nothing to do with Geof's confusion, then he never should have posted an erroneous opinion to further add to the confusion.

It's not that complicated.

Good day.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Peace

Did you ever assist Geof in pointing out not to use the case play cited as a basis to rule on the play he was questioning?

Did you ever point out, for the benefit of newer officials, what the proper scenarios would be for adjudicating the BC rule per the case play cited by OKREF?

If I were just to follow your posts on the subject, I would not learn anything about the practical applications of the BC rule. At least with Jeff, I would know throw-in situations are not covered by that case play.

Holy crap, I forgot how much I loved this forum. LOL!!!

Where's Mark Dexter with the popcorn gif??

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Did you do any of these things either?

Yeah, I did, several times. In fact, I think I was the first one to answer Geof to point out where his disconnect was and he thanked me. I have responded a couple times to OKREF with example plays.

Have you read other responses, or just Jeff's?

Yep.

Great commentary on the most misunderstood rules.

Perhaps you could add the ridiculous comments from players; coaches; fans that precede their lack of knowledge. Now that would be funny.

"Keep your mouth shut and I will guess; open your mouth and I will know!"

Thanks again.