Jump Ball, then . . .

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Freddy. Are you saying that....

Nope. Not saying anything. Just verifying whether we may have stumbled across a situation where that time honored formula does not apply. Or whether that formula, as trustworthy as it always has been perceived to be, steers us toward a particular assessment.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Nope. Not saying anything. Just verifying whether we may have stumbled across a situation where that time honored formula does not apply. Or whether that formula, as trustworthy as it always has been perceived to be, steers us toward a particular assessment.

That 4-points test for backcourt works perfectly here.
White establishes team control (and player control) in the frontcourt upon the catch by the airborne player because he jumped from his frontcourt. At this moment the ball also has frontcourt status.
He is clearly the last to touch in the frontcourt, and upon landing in the backcourt he is the first to touch there. = backcourt violation

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That 4-points test for backcourt works perfectly here = backcourt violation

That hasn't been the main issue here. The issue has been whether, or not, the defensive steal exception comes into play. But the word steal isn't even stated in the exception (my big mistake), so any mention of a "steal exception" is basically a non sequitur. The debate hinges on the word "defense".

9-9-3: ... while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

"Defense" is not defined in Rule 4 Definitions, so it's up to officials to come up with a logical, rational definition, maybe leaning toward a common sense, generic, non-basketball-rule, definition. When there is no player control, or team control, and there's basically a loose ball, can a player be on defense? Most on this Forum are saying, "No", thus, no defense exception to the backcourt rule.

How about intent and purpose? The ten second rule, and backcourt rule, were initiated to keep teams from using the entire court to stall and play "keep away". Does this video present a situation where an exception fits the intent and purpose of the backcourt rule?

How about this (following) play, viewed in common sense, generic, non-basketball-rule language: With seconds left in a tied game, there's a loose ball, with no team clearly on offense, or on defense. A red player tries to tip the ball to another red player, but a white player swoops in, grabs the ball, and makes the game winning layup. Would some describe this as "a great defensive play"? Who among us would quibble with that description?

I now know that I was wrong to accept the non call the first time that I viewed the video, so I'm not trying to defend myself, I'm just saying that this situation may not be as simple as many think, especially in real time, in the opening seconds of a game where a loose ball is pin balling back and forth across the division line.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I can understand missing a call ...

Me too.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That hasn't been the main issue here. The issue has been whether, or not, the defensive steal exception comes into play. But the word steal isn't even stated in the exception (my big mistake), so any mention of a "steal exception" is basically a non sequitur. The debate hinges on the word "defense".

9-9-3: ... while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

"Defense" is not defined in Rule 4 Definitions, so it's up to officials to come up with a logical, rational definition, maybe leaning toward a common sense, generic, non-basketball-rule, definition. When there is no player control, or team control, and there's basically a loose ball, can a player be on defense? Most on this Forum are saying, "No", thus, no defense exception to the backcourt rule.

How about intent and purpose? The ten second rule, and backcourt rule, were initiated to keep teams from using the entire court to stall and play "keep away". Does this video present a situation where an exception fits the intent and purpose of the backcourt rule?

You are making the same arguments, again, that were made several years ago on the throw-in exception. If the non-inbounding team isn't on "defense" when there's Team Control, how can blue be on defense in the OP when there's no TC?

You (or we) might not like the answer, but it's pretty clear that neither team in on defense in the OP. And, it's going to stay that way unless and until there's a rule change.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the non-inbounding team isn't on "defense" when there's Team Control, how can blue be on defense in the OP when there's no TC? ... it's pretty clear that neither team in on defense in the OP.

Team control is equated to offense. The other team is equated to defense. No team control means nobody is on offense, nor on defense. Simple, easy to understand, I agree with it, but where's the NFHS definition that confirms that, I can't find it in Rule 4 Definitions, where it should be if it's that important a concept.

Possible play by play on the video: "White 11 made a great defensive play with a great steal." But I know that this is not official NFHS language.

The final point of emphasis by the committee deals with professionalism by officials ... it is important that officials maintain professionalism ... Key in this professionalism is the use of proper terminology. In an era of round-the-clock commentators using today’s latest lingo to describe game situations to entertain, officials cannot be caught up in that shift to less than professional terminology.



Wait a minute? Can a player grab an offensive rebound? Or, can a player grab a defensive rebound? There's no team control during a try? Right? So they're just grabbing rebounds? Right?

Alright, I know that offensive rebounds, and defensive rebounds, aren't official NFHS terms, but still ... Hmmm ...

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That 4-points test for backcourt works perfectly here.

Then I'm good with it.
Immediate native impulse on the floor would be to give it a no-call as the 9-3-3 "while on defense" exception, but I can see why it, by rule, should be called a backcourt violation.
Thanx.