Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Intent And Purpose ???
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Need A Ruling ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Boundary ...
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
And, the words in red are extraneous. |
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? |
Quote:
The other is that the same "dribbling and touching an OOB line" rule applies to the division line. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |