back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[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?

[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.