back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I read Bob's comment in the context of this OP. To the extent that you can't get team control without PC it can be an issue in the FC. Throw-in to or steal in FC by team A. ball then goes to BC and team A player first to touch it. Violation in this play only if there was team control in the FC…(which would have required PC in FC to establish it)

I know you know all this. I don't get why you would say PC in FC is "never" an issue? maybe I'm missing something...

At some point you need PC inbounds. Whether it's in the FC or in the BC is never an issue.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

At some point you need PC inbounds. Whether it's in the FC or in the BC is never an issue.

Ok. we will agree to disagree on what is an issue. in my example if there was PC in the FC then there's a violation when the ball is touched first in BC. If there wasn't PC in FC, and thus no team control, it isn't a violation when ball is touched first in BC. Where the PC happens in that play is an issue imo. thx

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I read Bob's comment in the context of this OP. To the extent that you can't get team control without PC it can be an issue in the FC. Throw-in to or steal in FC by team A. ball then goes to BC and team A player first to touch it. Violation in this play only if there was team control in the FC…(which would have required PC in FC to establish it)

I know you know all this. I don't get why you would say PC in FC is "never" an issue? maybe I'm missing something...

Because PC in the FC is never a requirement for a BC violation. PC inbounds and TC in the FC are requirements. There's a difference, and anybody learning or struggling with the rule needs to know that difference in order to better understand the rule.

Additionally, Bob's response was to this incorrect assertion:

Originally Posted by OKREF

FWIW. I sent this question out to my entire association, and all the response's I have received back have thought this is not a back court. I think it isn't a BC violation, however I'm not 100% sure and could be swayed to change my mind. Since there was never player control of the ball in the FC, wouldn't this have a bearing on the play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I read Bob's comment in the context of this OP. To the extent that you can't get team control without PC it can be an issue in the FC. Throw-in to or steal in FC by team A. ball then goes to BC and team A player first to touch it. Violation in this play only if there was team control in the FC…(which would have required PC in FC to establish it)

I know you know all this. I don't get why you would say PC in FC is "never" an issue? maybe I'm missing something...

PC is not required to have taken place ing the front court. Once PC is established, anywhere, only team control in the front court is required. This can happen in a number of ways without front court player control.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Because PC in the FC is never a requirement for a BC violation. PC inbounds and TC in the FC are requirements. There's a difference, and anybody learning or struggling with the rule needs to know that difference in order to better understand the rule.

Additionally, Bob's response was to this incorrect assertion:

I understand the rule, what you are saying and i know Bob's response was to the incorrect assertion. The comment was made that PC in the FC is NEVER an issue. I disagree with what you all consider an issue. On specific plays, to the extent that you can't get team control without PC it certainly is an issue where the PC occurred. The FC throw in that is tipped or controlled by A1 in FC, goes to BC and A1 is first to touch. If he had PC in the FC on this play he also had TC and when he goes to touch in BC we know violation. If he didn't have PC in FC on this play there is no TC so he can go get ball.

On this specific play where the PC occurs matters and is an issue.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I understand the rule, what you are saying and i know Bob's response was to the incorrect assertion. The comment was made that PC in the FC is NEVER an issue. I disagree with what you all consider an issue. On specific plays, to the extent that you can't get team control without PC it certainly is an issue where the PC occurred. The FC throw in that is tipped or controlled by A1 in FC, goes to BC and A1 is first to touch. If he had PC in the FC on this play he also had TC and when he goes to touch in BC we know violation. If he didn't have PC in FC on this play there is no TC so he can go get ball.

On this specific play where the PC occurs matters and is an issue.

I prefer not to confuse people who are learning the rule. I like to stick to the basics and answer each requirement.

PC in inbounds--check
TC in the front court--check
Last to touch when ball had FC status--check
First to touch when ball had BC status--check

If the first 2 requirements are answered by the same action, great.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I read Bob's comment in the context of this OP. To the extent that you can't get team control without PC it can be an issue in the FC. Throw-in to or steal in FC by team A. ball then goes to BC and team A player first to touch it. Violation in this play only if there was team control in the FC…(which would have required PC in FC to establish it)

I know you know all this. I don't get why you would say PC in FC is "never" an issue? maybe I'm missing something...

Your scenario is true, no one would debate that. However, it is also true that PC in FC is never an issue, because we are discussing BC violations, which assume that TC already exists. Your scenario of the throw in or steal, TC has not yet been established, so BC is not a discussion on the table. In possible BC violation scenarios, TC must exist, and as soon as it does, PC in FC is in fact, never an issue.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I prefer not to confuse people who are learning the rule. I like to stick to the basics and answer each requirement.

PC in inbounds--check
TC in the front court--check
Last to touch when ball had FC status--check
First to touch when ball had BC status--check

If the first 2 requirements are answered by the same action, great.

I didn't think anything i said was confusing…maybe it was/is to some.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I didn't think anything i said was confusing…maybe it was/is to some.

As I said, it is confusing when trying to teach someone the rule. Introducing unnecessary stipulations will always confuse someone who is trying to grasp a point. Why add a whole bunch of what if's when you have 4 basic requirements that can be run as a checklist?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

As I said, it is confusing when trying to teach someone the rule. Introducing unnecessary stipulations will always confuse someone who is trying to grasp a point. Why add a whole bunch of what if's when you have 4 basic requirements that can be run as a checklist?

you're right….

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

As I said, it is confusing when trying to teach someone the rule. Introducing unnecessary stipulations will always confuse someone who is trying to grasp a point. Why add a whole bunch of what if's when you have 4 basic requirements that can be run as a checklist?

Exactly....those 4 points are all you really need to understand backcourt violations.

The only note/modification I'd add would be that being last to touch the ball when it had FC status is NOT the same as last to touch the ball in the FC. What you said is entirely correct, just that I'd word it a little different: last to touch the ball before it returned to the BC.

Means the same, but perhaps clarifies the situation where in no one ever touches the ball while it is actually in the FC.

Same point applies to the 4th point as well.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

The definition also includes the words "gets away." How far does "gets away" have to be? In the OP A1 had to dive to recover control of the ball. I think we can safely say the ball "got away." In Camron's example, I don't think so. But if my brain is quick enough to tell me (during the time it takes the player to regain control) "THAT'S AN INTERRUPTED DRIBBLE. CALL THE VIOLATION!" then I will.
But . . . it isn't, so I ain't.

So now we're debating whether Camron's play describes an interrupted dribble or not. Does a "brief delay"="momentarily"? This is often a problem when one tries to translate a play from the court onto paper. But I think we agree. If it was an interrupted dribble, this is a violation, whether the next touch is a catch or the resumption of the dribble.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So now we're debating whether Camron's play describes an interrupted dribble or not. Does a "brief delay"="momentarily? This is often a problem when one tries to translate a play from the court onto paper. But I think we agree. If it was an interrupted dribble, this is a violation, whether the next touch is a catch or the resumption of the dribble.

The point of my play was to illustrate that the interrupted dribble may or may not affect the backcourt rule as some might expect. Specifically, a brief bobble of the dribble IS technically an interrupted dribble yet few would consider the backcourt violation of the ball bounced in the frontcourt on such a play. If so, by extension, it shouldn't matter how long the interruption is. Thus, if you're not calling a violation for the play I described, it would be inconsistent to do so in the original play.

I just don't think that the rules were written with this scenario in mind and no matter which way we look at it, it isn't going to be elegant and logical.

As I said above, I could come to either conclusion on this one and could probably support one direction as well as the other and wouldn't fault an official for either call on this.