Duke/Carolina Back Court

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JeffM

I can see where it could be judged an interrupted dribble.

I think it was a dribble. He pushed the ball to the floor with one hand and behind his back so the ball would be just where he knew it would be when the ball returned from the floor and he returned from having one foot in the backcourt. I think he had control of the ball when he pushed it to the floor.

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).

[nolanjj68]

After reviewing it further I think I am changing my mind and saying not a backcourt violation. After watching it about 5 more times, it looks like the UNC player gains control in the front court after lifting his foot up from the backcourt, while his other foot is in the front court.

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by JeffM

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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by JeffM

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JeffM

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.