Duke/Carolina Back Court

[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.

[Adam]

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.

[just another ref]

In real time, I would say if a dribbler is moving parallel to the division line, it would be very difficult to say whether the touches of the ball and the line happened at the same time, and when in doubt, the step on the line would draw a whistle. In the OP, it is somewhat easier to separate the two, in my opinion. With the benefit of the video, I have nothing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.)

Without taking sides (because I don't really know*):

Play: Defender B1 takes an otherwise-legal guarding position with one foot (a) on the sideline, or (b) on the division line. Dribbler A1 charges into B1.

Ruling: (a) Block. (b) ??

(* IRL, it's easy to call the dribbling play a BC violation because "everyone" will see the foot on the line and "no one" will know of any inconsistency in the rule.)

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Without taking sides (because I don't really know*):

Play: Defender B1 takes an otherwise-legal guarding position with one foot (a) on the sideline, or (b) on the division line. Dribbler A1 charges into B1.

Ruling: (a) Block. (b) ??

(* IRL, it's easy to call the dribbling play a BC violation because "everyone" will see the foot on the line and "no one" will know of any inconsistency in the rule.)

IMO, b = charge.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Without taking sides (because I don't really know*):

Play: Defender B1 takes an otherwise-legal guarding position with one foot (a) on the sideline, or (b) on the division line. Dribbler A1 charges into B1.

Ruling: (a) Block. (b) ??

(* IRL, it's easy to call the dribbling play a BC violation because "everyone" will see the foot on the line and "no one" will know of any inconsistency in the rule.)

Originally Posted by bucky

IMO, b = charge.

Bob's point being that the division line and sidelines are not both treated as boundary lines in the context of the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Without taking sides (because I don't really know*):

Play: Defender B1 takes an otherwise-legal guarding position with one foot (a) on the sideline, or (b) on the division line. Dribbler A1 charges into B1.

Ruling: (a) Block. (b) ??

(* IRL, it's easy to call the dribbling play a BC violation because "everyone" will see the foot on the line and "no one" will know of any inconsistency in the rule.)

"as similar.... as possible"

There are going to be obvious discrepancies in how they are approached. For example, it's not against the rules for a team to throw the ball into the backcourt; only to be the first to touch it afterwards.

In more than one ruling, from what I remember, though, they try to apply some of the same principles. I could see this being one of those cases.