The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 02:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 03:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 03:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 03:50pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 21,855
Intent And Purpose ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 03:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 04:12pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 21,855
Need A Ruling ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
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".
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 09:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
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.
__________________
Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out.
-- John Wooden
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 07, 2017, 11:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 07:27am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 21,855
Boundary ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
... 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
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 09:23am
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,517
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?
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 09:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 12:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 02:07pm.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 12:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 08, 2017, 02:30pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duke @ North Carolina 3 Plays (Video) JRutledge Basketball 30 Thu Feb 18, 2016 05:17pm
Duke vs North Carolina (2015) (Videos x2) bballref3966 Basketball 15 Mon Mar 09, 2015 02:54am
Another front court back court scenario socal Basketball 8 Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:51pm
North Carolina vs. Duke AremRed Basketball 16 Sat Feb 22, 2014 06:15am
Foul in Back Court going to Front Court with No Free Throws howie719 Basketball 4 Thu Feb 06, 2014 01:28pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1