back court violation following an interrupted dribble?
 

A1 dribbling in the back court loses control of the ball. The ball bounces/rolls into the front court. A1 dives and recovers the loose ball but has a foot still touching the back court. Nothing or b/c violation?

Violation. During an interrupted dribble the three points rule does not apply, if that's what you're asking.

No. I'm having a brain cramp regarding 9-9-2 which I think is the applicable rule (While in player and team control in its back court, a player shall not cause the ball to go from back court>front court>back court . . .) However, during the interrupted dribble there is no player control. Even so, the ball went from back court>front court>back court all while there was team control. Maybe I'm distracted by the Browns game.

The ball has established front court status. Then, while touching the ball, the player location is in the backcourt (Rule 4.35.2) "...a player is touching the backcourt...the player is located in backcourt..." Violation-backcourt.

BC violation. Maintaining PC is not needed in order to violate.

Reminder ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.

BktBallRef and I have debated this a couple of times and both sides have merit.
There is no PC, but the rules don't state that the dribble ends, so we have an unclear situation.

Interesting point. Are you saying that the dribble, although interupted, has not ended so both feet and the ball would need to be in the frontcourt to gain frontcourt status?

The OP stated "recovered loose ball", not "continued dribble of loose ball". I interpreted recovery as ending ones dribble. Since the ball has established front court status and the player is touching the backcourt, by rule as stated in other posts, backcourt violation.

Does that help?

Let me add: OP did not state "recovered loose ball while standing with foot/feet in backcourt". Presumed "dive" meant contacting floor with body other than feet.

I would say the dribble has not ended (therefore by rule the term "interrupted dribble"). If A1 were to get to the ball and continue the dribble, the interrupted dribble ends and the original dribble continues. But in the OP A1 dives on the floor and possesses the ball ending both the interrupted dribble and the original dribble. During the interrupted dribble I would think A1 is no longer a dribbler because certain rules no longer apply to the situation or to A1 that would apply if A1 was a dribbler. (See 4-15-6) And, as j.a.r. said, the 3 pts. issue would not apply either if A1 was not a dribbler. So, as I see it, we have a situation (interrupted dribble, no player control) but while in Team A control, the ball goes from the back court to the front court and then is touched by A1 whose location is in the back court which results in a violation. What has been confusing to me is the wording in Rule 9-9-2: "While in player and team control in the back court a player shall not cause the ball to go from the back court to the front court and return to the back court . . . Which seems to imply there must be both player and team control which is not the case in an interrupted dribble. To me, it would be more accurate if the wording said: "While in player or team control in the back court . . .

True, but until the point of the recovery, the dribble had not yet ended since the player would be permitted to resume/continue the dribble absent the other complicating factors.

I believe that, while the dribble hasn't ended but is interrupted, the dribbler still has the protection of the 3 points rule. (And I've changed my mind twice as I've typed this).

I think I agree here. The interrupted dribble stopped when the ball was possessed. Since the dribble ended and all three points weren't in the front court, I think its okay.

The three points rule in ball location section says "DURING a dribble from BC to FC...."

The definition of Dribble says "A dribble is ball movement CAUSED BY A PLAYER IN CONTROL...."

Even though it is called an "interrupted dribble", it is not, by definition, a DRIBBLE since there is no player control. The player has the right to resume the dribble (get player control back) but what is in between cant be a dribble under the definitions imo.

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

I agree with this. And, again, the fact that rules that would apply during a dribble do not apply during an interrupted dribble. Rule 4-15-6
a. no closely guarded count
b. no player control fouls
c. no time out requests granted
d. no out of bounds violations for the player involved

Good point there.

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.

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?

yes

yes

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

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

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.

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?

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

Yea, you're right. My bad.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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.

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.

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?

you're right….

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.

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.