The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Duke/Carolina Back Court (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/102360-duke-carolina-back-court.html)

JeffM Tue Mar 07, 2017 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1001855)
I do not think that an interrupted dribble is an option. To have an interrupted dribble, there has to be a dribble to start with. Either that first push down is a dribble (it came right back to him so it isn't interrupted) or it isn't a dribble at all (nothing to be interrupted).

If it wasn't a dribble or an interrupted dribble, I'm not sure what to call it. If it wasn't a dribble, would he have been allowed to catch the ball with both hands, make a few fakes, and then dribble?

bob jenkins Tue Mar 07, 2017 03:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffM (Post 1001862)
If it wasn't a dribble, would he have been allowed to catch the ball with both hands, make a few fakes, and then dribble?

By definition, yes.

JeffM Tue Mar 07, 2017 03:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1001866)
By definition, yes.

So, presumably, anyone not calling this a backcourt violation would have allowed him to catch the ball with two hands, make a few fakes and then dribble.

BillyMac Tue Mar 07, 2017 03:50pm

Intent And Purpose ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1001834)
A player who touches a boundary line while dribbling has caused the ball to go OOB, even if the ball isn't touched at the same time as the line. No such rule / statement exists for the division line.

The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary,
even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.


The second part of the rule certainly refers specifically to an out of bounds/inbound boundary line. I can't deny that, it's right there in black and white.

So if a frontcourt player is dribbling parallel to, and very close to the division line, he may be able to legally touch the division line with is foot, but has to have his hand in contact with the ball to have a backcourt violation when his foot is touching the division line?

The term boundary is used in the rulebook to refer to many boundaries, i.e., the boundary of the free throw lane line.

Can't we use intent and purpose of the rule to interpret a frontcourt player dribbling near the division line "boundary" to call a backcourt violation no matter if the ball is in contact with his hand, or not, at the time that his foot touches the boundary?

JeffM Tue Mar 07, 2017 03:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1001872)
The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary,
even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.


The second part of the rule certainly refers specifically to an out of bounds/inbound boundary line. I can't deny that, it's right there in black and white.

So if a frontcourt player is dribbling parallel to, and very close to the division line, he may be able to legally touch the division line with is foot, but has to have his hand in contact with the ball to have a backcourt violation when his foot is touching the division line?

The term boundary is used in the rulebook to refer to many boundaries, i.e., the boundary of the free throw lane line.

Can't we use intent and purpose of the rule to interpret a frontcourt player dribbling near the division line "boundary" to call a backcourt violation no matter if the ball is in contact with his hand, or not, at the time that his foot touches the boundary?

I also think that the rules regarding the are the same as the rules regarding the division line.

BillyMac Tue Mar 07, 2017 04:12pm

Need A Ruling ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffM (Post 1001873)
I also think that the rules regarding the are the same as the rules regarding the division line.

I would like to agree with you, but the rule specifically states "out of bounds".

A Pennsylvania Coach Tue Mar 07, 2017 09:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffM (Post 1001870)
So, presumably, anyone not calling this a backcourt violation would have allowed him to catch the ball with two hands, make a few fakes and then dribble.

By the same token, anyone calling this a violation would award him a timeout if he were requesting it during the moment his hand was on the ball initially before stepping into the backcourt.

bucky Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1001872)
The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary,
even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.


The second part of the rule certainly refers specifically to an out of bounds/inbound boundary line. I can't deny that, it's right there in black and white.

So if a frontcourt player is dribbling parallel to, and very close to the division line, he may be able to legally touch the division line with is foot, but has to have his hand in contact with the ball to have a backcourt violation when his foot is touching the division line?

The term boundary is used in the rulebook to refer to many boundaries, i.e., the boundary of the free throw lane line.

Can't we use intent and purpose of the rule to interpret a frontcourt player dribbling near the division line "boundary" to call a backcourt violation no matter if the ball is in contact with his hand, or not, at the time that his foot touches the boundary?

I have a dribble and no BC violation. Not sure about the discussion of boundary lines and dribblers because boundary lines (NFHS) are specifically defined as end lines and sidelines, not division lines.

BillyMac Wed Mar 08, 2017 07:27am

Boundary ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1001895)
... boundary lines (NFHS) are specifically defined as end lines and sidelines, not division lines.

True:

4-9: Boundary lines of the court consist of end lines and sidelines.

But in some cases the term "boundary" appears to be used generically:

1-4: The three-point field-goal line shall be the same color as the freethrow lane boundary lines and free-throw semicircle.

1-5: A free-throw lane, 12 feet wide measured to the outside of each lane boundary … There are three lane spaces on each lane boundary line …

9-1: … the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary

9-7: … touching the lane boundary

bob jenkins Wed Mar 08, 2017 08:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffM (Post 1001870)
So, presumably, anyone not calling this a backcourt violation would have allowed him to catch the ball with two hands, make a few fakes and then dribble.

Depends on the "boundary" issue. Some might have it as a dribble, but not a violation (since he didn't touch the division line and the ball at the same time).

And, the words in red are extraneous.

BryanV21 Wed Mar 08, 2017 09:23am

Let me get this straight...

I'm dribbling the ball near the division line. After the ball leaves my hand, but before it returns back up to it, I step back and touch the division line. That's not a backcourt violation since the ball wasn't touching my hand, or any part of my body, when I stepped on the line?

bob jenkins Wed Mar 08, 2017 09:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1001914)
Let me get this straight...

I'm dribbling the ball near the division line. After the ball leaves my hand, but before it returns back up to it, I step back and touch the division line. That's not a backcourt violation since the ball wasn't touching my hand, or any part of my body, when I stepped on the line?

That's one interpretation.

The other is that the same "dribbling and touching an OOB line" rule applies to the division line.

Camron Rust Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1001916)
That's one interpretation.

The other is that the same "dribbling and touching an OOB line" rule applies to the division line.

Correct. I believe I'm the one who brought to light the fact that the rule about a dribbler stepping on a boundary line while dribbling was specific about the OOB line. Yet, I've always called the division line the same with regards to the dribbler stepping on it and will continue to do so because I believe that the intent is to treat the dribbler as continuously touching the ball for the purposes of location.

bucky Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1001906)
True:

4-9: Boundary lines of the court consist of end lines and sidelines.

But in some cases the term "boundary" appears to be used generically:

1-4: The three-point field-goal line shall be the same color as the freethrow lane boundary lines and free-throw semicircle.

1-5: A free-throw lane, 12 feet wide measured to the outside of each lane boundary … There are three lane spaces on each lane boundary line …

9-1: … the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary

9-7: … touching the lane boundary

Again, just my opinion:

1) Definition of boundary lines are for the court, indicate endlines/sidelines, provide for IB/OB, and make no mention of the division line.

2) Ball location definition in regards to FC/BC indicate being in contact with the ball.

3) Dribble definition regarding interrupted dribble specifically mentions the OOB violation but not BC violation.

4) I would not say "generically". Your examples are specifically describing the FT area. I am not aware of any other uses other than IB/OB. I could be wrong and maybe there are other references. ??

5) Rule 7 has references to boundaries and they all involve IB/OB. Same for Case book.

6) Previously mentioned rule (BillMac?) regarding dribbler and contact with ball was specifically for OOB.

7) No rule/case for situation involving division line and that play certainly was not the first time it ever occurred.

This all leads me to interpret that dribbler must be in contact with the ball for BC violation when touching the division line.

Adam Wed Mar 08, 2017 02:30pm

The rule, as written, only applies this standard to boundary lines. Given the nature of a few statements from the committee, however, I think they want to consider the division line to be as similar to the boundary lines as possible. Once a team crosses into its front court, the game is meant to be played in the front court (just as it's meant to be played in bounds.)

In that vein, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just an oversight in the rules and the intent of the rule is to penalize a player who, after his team has gained FC status with the ball, gains BC status while in player control of the ball. In fact, a different ruling would surprise me.

For now, though, a strict reading of the rule leaves me with the opinion that one must be in contact with the ball and the BC at the same time in this scenario to be guilty of a violation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1