Duke/Carolina Back Court
 

Due to the fact that this hasn't even been addressed is making me wonder if I missed something. Saturday night 1st half Carolina has TC in front court when Duke player knocks it away toward mid court. (The trail Tim Nestor gives a tipped signal.). Carolina player re-gains control in the front court and then dribbles to the BC. Looks like a clear BC violation. I would love it if someone could post the video. (Not sure of time)

Without the time that is going to be hard. I do not have time to look up a play without some idea of when it took place. Do you have a range at least?

Peace

What, you mean Saturday night isn't good enough? ;) He even gave you the half just for good measure. ;);)


Thanks for doing the videos...and it is certainly not too much to ask for a precise time.

He does not even half to give me the time. He could say "Around the 14:00 mark of the first half" and it would take a few minutes to find.

No it is not enough. ;)

Peace

I would like to say around the 10:00 min mark in the 1st half but that's just a shot in the dark. Are these games somewhere that I can look up?

You can look up the box score on any school or game website. Secondly all games that ESPN Watch. I am not seeing the play in question at this time. I have the game recorded so I have some time to look it up, but need more information if possible.

Peace

I just found it on YouTube. 10:04 in the 1st half. Thanks for your patience.

Here is the play. Sorry to bust your balls, but it is hard to find all the close plays, especially the ones not called. Thanks for looking.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MdNua7d8x9I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Good No Call ...
 

Hard to see from the angle in the video, but I don't believe that it's a backcourt violation.

Definitely did not dribble to the backcourt. That's why I always like to the see video cuz you cannot always be sure that the play is being accurately described.

White #1 definitely recovered the ball (touching is sufficient) in the front court and then stepped in the backcourt and, as you said, did not dribble in the backcourt.

Next, there are two possibilities.

1. Was the player touching the ball while touching the backcourt? If so, it would be a violation.

2. Was the catch and release a dribble or just a bat? If a dribble, most would consider that a violation for being a dribbler who stepped on the division line (that despite the fact that the rules don't actually say that). If not a dribble, then it would not be a violation.

Good analysis.
1. No, he was never both in contact with the ball and the backcourt at the same time.
2. I deem that a bat without control. Per the Case Book play which we discussed a couple of weeks ago (4.15 Comment), when a player slaps the ball away from others attempting to get it that is not a dribble.

It's close, but I don't have a violation on the play.

I agree. The way I see this play is the UNC player touches the ball in the front court, then while the ball is out of his hand and in the dribble he steps into the backcourt, but reestablishes the position in the front court before retouching the ball.

I think it is a dribble and a backcourt violation.

It looks to me he reestablished control with both feet in the front court then stepped into the backcourt. Backcourt violation.

Is it a dribble or interrupted dribble?
There is no player control during the latter.

I don't even think that it is a dribble per the Case Book, but that is another debate.

Controls ball with both feet in the FC, dribbles behind his back. One foot lands in BC, that foot then rises off of floor and he touches ball with one foot on the floor, and the foot that was in the BC is in the air. What's his location?

It's close... close enough that I'm not going to make my living making that my best call of the night. Play on.

You are where you were til you get where you're going.

Yes. That's why I have a BC violation.

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.

??

Where he was going was the FC, and he was there as soon as one foot touched it and the other was lifted from the BC (which was your previous description).

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

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.

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

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 woudn't have called a backcourt violation but the travel ....
 

right after the UNC player regains control and passes the ball, there appears to be a travel violation not called.

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).

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.

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?

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.

Intent And Purpose ???
 

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.

Need A Ruling ...
 

I would like to agree with you, but the rule specifically states "out of bounds".

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.

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.

Boundary ...
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.