back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.