What Am I Missing Here ???

[Altor]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Yes. Backcourt violation on A1. Am I missing some kind of "stump the chump" aspect to this case play?

Take a look at 4-1-6. Does it apply to this situation?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Altor

Take a look at 4-1-6. Does it apply to this situation?

I assume you meant 4-4-6. Fair point. But WRT this situation, that seems to be in direct conflict with 4-4-2.

If I ever see this (doubtful), I know what the intent of 4-4-6 is and I will defer to the more reasonable logic of 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I assume you meant 4-4-6. Fair point. But WRT this situation, that seems to be in direct conflict with 4-4-2.

If I ever see this (doubtful), I know what the intent of 4-4-6 is and I will defer to the more reasonable logic of 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At what point in the "hopping process" do you decide that 4-4-2 supersedes 4-4-6?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

At what point in the "hopping process" do you decide that 4-4-2 supersedes 4-4-6?

When the "hopper" is far enough across the division line that a reasonable person would not expect him/her to be able to return to the backcourt in one stride length or less.

In Nevada's hypothetical situation, the hopper got all the way to the frontcourt semi-circle. That's plenty far enough for me to deem the ball as having frontcourt location IAW 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

When the "hopper" is far enough across the division line that a reasonable person would not expect him/her to be able to return to the backcourt in one stride length or less.

In Nevada's hypothetical situation, the hopper got all the way to the frontcourt semi-circle. That's plenty far enough for me to deem the ball as having frontcourt location IAW 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet, the rules say otherwise.

4-4-6 essentially says that a dribbler who is touching only the frontcourt and not the backcourt is, despite the criteria laid out 4-4-2, still in the backcourt until all 3 points touch the floor. So, unless you're saying the dribbler in the hypothetical case is no longer dribbling, there is no reason to suspend the use of 4-4-6.

That also means the 10 second count is still in progress and that will be reached soon enough....probably before the hopper can get too far in the frontcourt.

Either way, call me when you see that happen.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

At what point in the "hopping process" do you decide that 4-4-2 supersedes 4-4-6?

I don't think 4-4-2 would supersede 4-4-6. However, hopping on one foot into the front court while dribbling with the intent of maintaining backcourt status would be attempting to gain an advantage which is not intended by a rule 4-4-6.

After a couple of hops, couldn't you use 2-3 to end the backcourt count and assume frontcourt status?

[bob jenkins]

I'm very hard pressed to see how intentionally hopping (more than, say, 1or 2 hops to change directions or avoid stepping OOB) could be used for an advantage.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm very hard pressed to see how intentionally hopping (more than, say, 1or 2 hops to change directions or avoid stepping OOB) could be used for an advantage.

Well any scenario that involved hopping would be unlikely, but lets say dribbler A1 twists an ankle as he approaches the division line and continues to dribble into the front court while hopping. The defensive pressure forces him back into the backcourt where he picks up his dribble and calls timeout.

I think this would be an advantage not intended by rule.

[deecee]

I will apply common sense if this ever happens.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Well any scenario that involved hopping would be unlikely, but lets say dribbler A1 twists an ankle as he approaches the division line and continues to dribble into the front court while hopping. The defensive pressure forces him back into the backcourt where he picks up his dribble and calls timeout.

I think this would be an advantage not intended by rule.

If such dribbler is capable of doing that while under defensive pressure, all without losing the ball, I think he/she deserves to be awarded that timeout.