Inbounds pass muffed into backcourt

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

That is the point. A player dribbling in FC is in control. If he bounced ball on division line he's caused it to be in BC. Steps on line.same. It takes 3 to get u to FC but once you there it only takes one to put you in BC. As far as player holding or dribbling ball, the division line is like a boundary.

I think you'd be better using the precedent of a dribbler stepping on the OOB (while not holding the ball) line as support for this. I think you're right, and that's how I would call it, but 3 points verbiage is a thin nail for this hat to hang.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think you'd be better using the precedent of a dribbler stepping on the OOB (while not holding the ball) line as support for this. I think you're right, and that's how I would call it, but 3 points verbiage is a thin nail for this hat to hang.

I am not hanging anything on that. I was guessing that folks thinking once a player was in FC dribbling, if he simply stepped on the line or dribbled ball on the line it wasn't a violation. I was guessing they were saying it took 3 parts to go back to BC.

My point all along is that 3 parts is a rule to put you in FC. Once you're in it, that rule is over. A player dribbling is in control of ball. If he steps on line or dribbles on it he's violated. Caused ball to be in BC etc

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I am not hanging anything on that. I was guessing that folks thinking once a player was in FC dribbling, if he simply stepped on the line or dribbled ball on the line it wasn't a violation. I was guessing they were saying it took 3 parts to go back to BC.

My point all along is that 3 parts is a rule to put you in FC. Once you're in it, that rule is over. A player dribbling is in control of ball. If he steps on line or dribbles on it he's violated. Caused ball to be in BC etc

Well hell. I misunderstood you.

Carry on.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I am not hanging anything on that. I was guessing that folks thinking once a player was in FC dribbling, if he simply stepped on the line or dribbled ball on the line it wasn't a violation. I was guessing they were saying it took 3 parts to go back to BC.

My point all along is that 3 parts is a rule to put you in FC. Once you're in it, that rule is over. A player dribbling is in control of ball. If he steps on line or dribbles on it he's violated. Caused ball to be in BC etc

It is not a violation to cause the ball to be in the backcourt. Only touching first after causing it to go into the backcourt is a violation (after having last touched it before it went to the backcourt).

Also, as I posted above, the ball location rules actually do not say the ball is in the backcourt when the dribbler steps on the line unless the dribbler is touching the ball while doing so. The clause that covers that for OOBs situations is specifically in the OOB section and mentioned boundaries and doesn't mention the division line.


Likewise for a dribble that hits the line...causing it to be in the backcourt isn't the violation, it is the subsequent touch, according to the rules as far as I can tell?

So, while I have always called it this way, what, by rule, makes it a violation for just stepping/dribbling on the division line?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is not a violation to cause the ball to be in the backcourt. Only touching first after causing it to go into the backcourt is a violation (after having last touched it before it went to the backcourt).

Also, as I posted above, the ball location rules actually do not say the ball is in the backcourt when the dribbler steps on the line unless the dribbler is touching the ball while doing so. The clause that covers that for OOBs situations is specifically in the OOB section and mentioned boundaries and doesn't mention the division line.


Likewise for a dribble that hits the line...causing it to be in the backcourt isn't the violation, it is the subsequent touch, according to the rules as far as I can tell?

So, while I have always called it this way, what, by rule, makes it a violation for just stepping/dribbling on the division line?

This will be abbreviated response. You are looking at ball location rule. Look at player control rule. A player holding or dribbling the ball has player control. There are two plays/rules. The player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is deemed OB because he has CONTROL. Interrupted dribble play. Player steps on line, no violation cause no control. These are actually in the rules as opposed to case book. Those plays are just as much about control and player location than the are about inbounds/out of bounds.

Now, you know 1. the BC consists of area plus the division line. 2. Our player is dribbling ball in FC. All the way in. 3. That means team control in FC. 4. If he steps on the line while in control of the ball , holding or dribbling, he is now In BC. The two situations are about control and location. 5. He was last to touch inFC and he dribbled into BC or stepped there.

Now if dribble interrupted and ball hits line then he is not in control and while the ball may be in BC he is not in control and is therefore not touching it in BC. As you said, simply causing it to go to BC isnt enough. However, IF HE IS IN CONTROL of ball and touches the line or dribbles ball on other side of line he IS in BC. Violation in all 3

Forget I said abbreviated.��

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

Well hell. I misunderstood you.

Carry on.

Sharp as a marble u were on that....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This will be abbreviated response. You are looking at ball location rule. Look at player control rule. A player holding or dribbling the ball has player control. There are two plays/rules. The player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is deemed OB because he has CONTROL. Interrupted dribble play. Player steps on line, no violation cause no control. These are actually in the rules as opposed to case book. Those plays are just as much about control and player location than the are about inbounds/out of bounds.

Now, you know 1. the BC consists of area plus the division line. 2. Our player is dribbling ball in FC. All the way in. 3. That means team control in FC. 4. If he steps on the line while in control of the ball , holding or dribbling, he is now In BC. The two situations are about control and location. 5. He was last to touch inFC and he dribbled into BC or stepped there.

Now if dribble interrupted and ball hits line then he is not in control and while the ball may be in BC he is not in control and is therefore not touching it in BC. As you said, simply causing it to go to BC isn't enough. However, IF HE IS IN CONTROL of ball and touches the line or dribbles ball on other side of line he IS in BC. Violation in all 3

Forget I said abbreviated.��

I think the point you're missing is that, while the player clearly obtains BC location by stepping on the line, the definition ball location doesn't put the ball in the backcourt unless the player is touching the ball at that moment. So, unless the player is touching the ball, the ball will have never returned to the backcourt.

And the OOB does say it is OOB when it is under player control but it doesn't go so far as to say that is the reason. I'll concede that it is probably the same thing. However, it simply says a player who has control who steps OOB has caused the ball to be OOB. It does't say a player who has control is the same as touching the ball anywhere else. It would be nice to extend that to cover ball location in general, and maybe that really is what is desired, but that rule is specifically listed as causing an OOB violation, not redefining ball location.

As written, the rules you're referencing do not apply to this situation without at least some level of inference.