back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by billyu2

If A1 is still considered a "dribbler" during an interrupted dribble, why is it not a violation if he steps out of bounds?

Good point there.

[BigCat]

also, in addition to what i mentioned in post 13, the dictionary definition of interrupt is "to stop." interrupted dribble means the dribble has stopped. 3 points, as mentioned above, says must be "during" a dribble.

The dribble has not ended but it has stopped. that's my opinion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

If A1 is still considered a "dribbler" during an interrupted dribble, why is it not a violation if he steps out of bounds?

I didn't suggest that A1 was still a dribbler during the interruption but the moment they touch the ball, they are again a dribbler. Being between the time the dribble has started and not yet having ended, it is still during the dribble. Sort of like commercials that happen during a game....they're during the game but not part of the game.

I could flip the other way on this (and did a few times before I posted my opinion).

If you consider the opposite case, what if the dribbler dribbles the ball off of a leg very briefly as they're crossing the line such that the ball bounces in the front court and is able to, after an ever so brief delay, continue the dribble? Is that an interrupted dribble? Is that a violation?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you consider the opposite case, what if the dribbler dribbles the ball off of a leg very briefly as they're crossing the line such that the ball bounces in the front court and is able to, after an ever so brief delay, continue the dribble?

Is that an interrupted dribble?

yes

Is that a violation?

yes

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

yes



yes

Just for glancing off his own leg such that he had to adjust slightly to continue the dribble? Really?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

yes



yes

What's the violation? The touch was not an intentional kick, and it's not a double dribble.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just for glancing off his own leg such that he had to adjust slightly to continue the dribble? Really?

The definition of interrupted dribble includes the word momentarily. How long is that? When you say he was able to "continue the dribble," that says to me that this was indeed an interrupted dribble. So if it was an interrupted dribble it wasn't a dribble when the ball gained frontcourt status. The three point rule applies only during a dribble. So if this player now touches the ball with a foot in the backcourt, whether it's to resume the dribble or not, this is a backcourt violation.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The definition of interrupted dribble includes the word momentarily. How long is that? When you say he was able to "continue the dribble," that says to me that this was indeed an interrupted dribble. So if it was an interrupted dribble it wasn't a dribble when the ball gained frontcourt status. The three point rule applies only during a dribble. So if this player now touches the ball with a foot in the backcourt, whether it's to resume the dribble or not, this is a backcourt violation.

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.

[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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Since there was never player control of the ball in the FC, wouldn't this have a bearing on the play?

"PC in the FC" has no bearing on any BC call.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"PC in the FC" has no bearing on any BC call.

Yea, you're right. My bad.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"PC in the FC" has no bearing on any BC call.

I would say no bearing is misleading. Several cases where you would have to think if there was PC at some point before ruling a BC.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

I would say no bearing is misleading. Several cases where you would have to think if there was PC at some point before ruling a BC.

But, and this is what bob alluded to, PC IN the FC is never an issue.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

But, and this is what bob alluded to, PC IN the FC is never an issue.

Yeah, thanks. I regretted posting before I thought about it.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

But, and this is what bob alluded to, PC IN the FC is never an issue.

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...