Duke/Carolina Back Court

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Frontcourt.
This isn't a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, so the 3-points rule doesn't apply. The controlling rule for player location in this case is nothing touching the backcourt means frontcourt location.

I know the 3 points doesn't apply. I think you just changed my mind.

[BryanV21]

Is it safe to say that if you rule the initial touch as the beginning of a dribble then it's a BC? If the initial touch is not the start of a dribble then it's nothing?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Is it safe to say that if you rule the initial touch as the beginning of a dribble then it's a BC? If the initial touch is not the start of a dribble then it's nothing?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

I would agree that there is no rule, but if a player is dribbling the ball in the FC, then I would suggest that if they touch the division line they have gone into the BC by rule. We could suggest there is no rule when it applies to touching the lane either in this specific case, but that to me would be a stretch. So in this case if the player was in a dribble and touched the BC, I would have a violation. But I think the specifics of that are not clear based on the video.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by JeffM

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".

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by bucky

... 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

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.