Jump Ball, then . . .
 

This was thrown out there over at a kindergarten FB forum today.

I'm thinking this is a no-call due to the "while on defense" exception clause in 9-9-3. But is the blue player's touch enough to establish that he is a defender?

What particular rule(s) do you ascribe to this situation?

Jump Ball, then Backcourt Situation

Omitted Video Now Included
 

Cf. Video...above

Havlicek Stole The Ball! Havlicek Stole The Ball! (Johnny Most) …
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throwin); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

... a defensive player, in making a steal; may legally jump from his, or 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. The player may make a normal landing, and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt, or the backcourt.

Then you agree that the blue player's deflection in his backcourt made the white player a defensive player so that when the white player attained player control he was allowed to take advantage of the exception to rule 9 - 3 - 3 "while on defense". Correct?

The "defensive player" exception wouldn't apply during the period immediately after a throw-in before TC inbounds was established. I don't know why it would apply during the same period after a jump ball.

That said, the "right" call is no call.

That, I think, is the reason this is such an interesting play. There is, admittedly, a gap in the rules that does not expressly cover this precise and highly infrequent situation. If it happened right in front of me, my trained impulse would be a no-call due to what I understand about the "while on defense" exception in 9-9-3. That might not be perfectly correct, but it arrives at the same place as Bob, and life goes on without a whistle.

If anything, it makes for a great review of the tenets of the rules regarding backcourt, team control, location of the ball, etc.

Havlicek Stole The Ball ...
 

The white player stole the ball after a tap that could be interpreted as the start of a pass (movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats, or rolls the ball to another player, no mention of offense, nor of defense). Can only an offensive player attempt a pass? Can only a defensive player steal the ball? Can a player steal the ball while there is no team control, or player control, and nobody is on either offense, or defense? Will intent and purpose of the rule help solve this conundrum? Some questions are best left unanswered (see recent threads on the new NFHS backcourt rule).

I agree with no call. I wish I could tell you why. I know that I could use some fancy officiating language (as encouraged by NFHS new Point of Emphasis) and talk my way out of an argument with a coach, but I'm not so sure that I could pull the wool over the eyes of the officials on this Forum.

Freddy's Not Dead, Despite What Curtis Mayfield Says ....
 

Nice video Freddy. Thanks.

Two Sides to Every Story - Joe Walsh
 

I can tell you why. It's a no-call because the player intercepted the ball "while on defense" and the exception in 9-9-3 applies.

I can also tell you why I'd defend a partner who calls a backcourt violation on this. Because the player first gained player control -- and thus team control -- in the frontcourt and then stepped into the backcourt.

As of right now I can skate on either sheet of ice.

The Thin Ice (Pink Floyd, 1979) …
 

No matter how thin the ice is?

No Team Control ...
 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Because there is no team control during the period immediately after a throwin, and thus, no offensive, nor defensive, players?

Lack of team control during the period immediately after a throwin (and, thus lack of offensive, and defensive, players) continues until one team gains player control, and thus, team control?

Same thing (lack of offensive, and defensive, players) during a jump ball continues until one team gains player control, and thus, team control?

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. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

Would there be any difference in the OP for NCAA/NBA/FIBA rules? To my knowledge, team control exists on a throw-in at those levels when the ball is placed at the disposal of Team A (the team that will be conducting the throw-in), and team control persists until a shot is attempted, the other team gains control of the ball, or the ball becomes dead. Because team control exists on a throw-in, the shot clock (and backcourt count) start when the ball is touched inbounds on a ball legally thrown in to the backcourt.

However, no team control initially exists for a jump ball under any set of rules, until player control is established. In that scenario, there will not be a backcourt violation until a player gains control in the frontcourt and transfers the ball to the backcourt. If that is the case, then the OP situation (defender deflecting and controlling a jump ball) is not different for NCAA/NBA/FIBA rules, but a situation with a throw-in might be different, since NBA and FIBA do not allow the ball to be thrown in to the backcourt until the final 2 minutes of regulation or overtime.

Damn The Traditon, Full Speed Ahead ...
 

Again, for the record, I hate jump balls. To start the game, just give the ball to the visiting team at the division line across from the table and start the alternating possession arrow procedure for the rest of the game, including any possible overtimes.

(Hopefully, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., won't have his reading glasses on, and won't be able to read this post, otherwise he'll write one of his famous three pages long, "good old days", posts. I really don't care that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., was James Naismith's college roommate, and the best man at Naismith's wedding, and taught Naismith everything about the rules of basketball.)

There's no difference.

And that's what happened in the OP

There is team control, but only for the purpose of a TC foul.

We went around and around on this many years ago when the TC during a throw-in was put in place. The FED has confirmed that if the OP was a throw-in, by either white or blue, the play would be a BC violation. See these interps from just last year -- especially #4:

SITUATION 3: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s frontcourt. A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from the team’s frontcourt, catches the ball
in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. When A2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when A2 lands in the backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

SITUATION 4: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1’s deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

Always listen to bob ...
 

Nice citations. Thanks.

So are you saying that because there is no team control that there is no backcourt defensive steal exception and that the video is a backcourt violation?

Very interesting.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=177&h=170

I think that if the FED were being consistent they would say that, by rule, the play presented is a BC violation.

I think if we were "inventing" basketball and were discussing this play, we would say that it should be legal and write the rule to accomplish that.

Been There, Done That ...
 

Great.

A year from now we can expect the NFHS to publish a press release with a cryptic backcourt jump ball no team control rule change exception that can be debated ad nauseam here on the Forum until the NFHS confirms what their intent really was.

I'll be the Forum member debating (and hoping, and, of course, that will shade my opinion) that the intent of the NFHS was to abolish all jump balls.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Q...=0&w=300&h=300

Guess I must be misunderstanding something....

(presuming the blue jersey did not have control and this is not a defensive player situation)

Looks like BC violation to me. Actually seems quite obvious. The jump ball ended, player was in his FC, jumped, gained control of the ball, and landed in his BC. This was not a throw-in in which case that description would be legal. This is not the first player to touch the ball after the initial jump ball tap, in which case that description would also be legal.

Also not sure why BM said "Because there is no team control during the period immediately after a throwin," unless it was part of his question.

Banishment ...
 

Nice succinct interpretation, most very likely to be correct.

If one makes a "steal" does that automatically mean that the stealer was on defense? Don't answer that question on a written test, but rather, answer that question in a split second as one is preparing to get into proper position after a chaotic jump ball situation. A missed call on this play should not send these officials down to middle school purgatory.

Not sure why you are asking b/c to me, the OP (video) has nothing to do with a defensive steal.

Now, as for asking about a steal, I am not familiar with the definition of a steal as far as record keeping is concerned. I presume that somewhere, there are actual definitions for basketball terms as far as how they are scored. Items such as assists, points, rebounds, steals, etc. must be defined somewhere. I would presume that a steal carries a definition that resembles the defense taking the ball from the offensive. Now, how would it be scored if A2, in joking fashion, took the ball from A3? Would that be considered a steal as far as the stats are concerned? Consider about A1, who has 499 career steals. Coach A instructs A1 to pass the ball to A2 and then for A1 to take it from A2 in order to record his 500th "steal". I have seen players (low level and panic stricken) simply hold the ball and a teammate (far better skill-wise) come a take the ball. What would that be? Yikes!

Stats are such as gray area. If A1 passes to A2 and B1 intercepts the ball, is that considered a steal by B1, a turnover by A1, or both?

I do not think all this was your point but...I always wonder about how official stats are defined.

I did not feel that this was a "chaotic" JB situation. Yes, I know, easier said sitting in a chair watching a video. Can't argue with that. Now, if the call was missed, I also do not feel that, given the apparent level of play, the calling official would be sent to MS purgatory.:) It looks to me like a play that could really make an official stand out. The problem is that no coach would agree with the proper call b/c they do not know the rule. In other words, in this situation, doing the wrong thing is probably the best thing. The no-call results in no explanations/arguments/problems with anyone. The correct call would result in those things with someone and now you have a game starting on a bad note.....even though the correct call was made!

To Make Our Life Interesting ...
 

Coaches around here argue no calls as much as they argue calls. They just like to argue. We've got a few (not many, but a few) rule-knowledgeable, veteran coaches who would argue the incorrect no call in the video. Coaches. Can't officiate with them. Can't officiate without them. God put them there to make our life interesting.

The correct call is a backcourt violation.
We have a player from White jumping into the air from his frontcourt, catching the ball, and landing with one foot in his backcourt.
This is a violation unless he qualifies for one of the three exceptions.

A. This is not a throw-in, so that one is out.

B. The jumpball ended when the ball was touched by a non-jumper, so the during a jumpball exception is out.

C. Blue merely batted the ball after the tapper. The touching by Blue never established control and would not have the AP arrow set in favor of
White, hence there is no team control by Blue which could make White a defensive player. Therefore, that exception is out as well.

We are left with the play remaining a backcourt violation.

BTW to preemptively answer some follow-up questions...
Yes, I would call this violation.
Blue will get the ball for a throw-in AND the AP arrow will be set in Blue's favor.
Tough luck for White, but this is no different than if the player had landed with one foot out-of-bounds.
I hope that everyone on this forum would have called that and set the arrow in favor of Blue.

Heat Of The Moment ...
 

Before this Forum discussion, in the heat of the moment, in a real game (not observing here from the comfort of my chair), my split second decision would have been that it was a steal and a no call. Now I know that I would be wrong, but that would be my call (and it was my call the very first time that I watched the video).

Even though I now know that I would be wrong, by rule, I'm still not 100% convinced (but I am convinced to a lesser degree) that the intent and purpose of the exception would be to strictly define what playing "defense" is.

So you're also setting the arrow to white because B gained initial possession?

That's the argument that we went round-and-round on some 12 years ago (SWAG) before the NFHS clarified the throw-in exception. Time for you to submit another rules change proposal to the committee.

The formula we often quote on this forum . . . could it be used to assess whether the OP should be called one way or the other? Or is it invalid regarding that play?

Requirements for a backcourt violation (in order):
1. Player control obtained (inbounds), establishing team control
2. Ball gains frontcourt status (it may or may not be in player control at this point)
3. Ball last touched by team A BEFORE the ball goes into the backcourt
4. Ball first touched by team A AFTER it goes into the backcourt

Thinking Steal ...
 

I never said that blue gained first possession. Play on (after my incorrect no call) after white gains first true, by definition, possession. Arrow goes to blue.

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.

Was white on defense? No. Just to be sure, let's look up "defense" in Rule 4 Definitions.

Hey, it's an easy backcourt call from the comfort of my chair, after reading dozens of posts, reading over the rule a few times, and reviewing the video a few times.

First time I saw the video, I wasn't thinking "defense", I was thinking "steal" and that's what screwed me up.

It's worth looking at the definition again. It's certainly germane to the situation. Let's look up "defense" in Rule 4 Definitions.

Interesting, Very Interesting ...
 

Freddy. Are you saying that the ball never had any status, frontcourt, nor backcourt, until white landed in the backcourt?

Is that what you're saying? Don't be coy. Just spit it out.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GqYTHELO2X...of%2Bworms.gif https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.4...=0&w=252&h=173

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.

Confucius Says ...
 

How about you are where you were until you get where you're going?

Technically, it is a backcourt violation for the same reason Bob said a deflected pass would be a backcourt violation in this situation. Jump ball had ended snd nobody was on offense or defense. Therefore no jump ball exception and there is no exception for a defensive player.

All that said, I would not call a backcourt violation on this and I don't think anybody would really notice.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

All of those statements are true.

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

That's a shame.
I can understand missing a call, but not deliberately failing to make a call.
That lacks integrity.

Intent And Purpose ???
 

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.

Me too.

The End.
 

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.

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.

When I work for you, I'll call it.

Meanwhile, you stick to throwing out the parents of injured players.

Embedding is your friend
 

I do not see this as a violation or at least the intent of the rule.

Peace

Proper Terminology ...
 

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.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.x...=0&w=252&h=190

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 ...

Technically, it is a violation. But it shouldn't be. There is no advantage being gained by that was not intended by the rules. The throwin situation should be changed to. The rules should be changed to say that a payer gaining team control in the air can always land in the backcourt.

As for integrity, there are plenty of rules that are deliberately not called because they're bad rules or the intent of the rule is not violated.

When is the last time you called a multiple foul? What about swinging of the elbows when it was a T? It was changed becasue no one would call it because the penalty was overkill for the infraction. What about 3 seconds? Every time??

In FIBA, swinging the elbows is still a technical foul, and yet it is still called in those games. Multiple fouls, on the other hand, are rare situations (It is hard to imagine a situation where two players foul an opponent at the same time while the ball is live, so even if A1 shoots, is hit by B1 in the act of shooting, and then is hit by B2, that is a false multiple foul, not a true multiple foul, unless B1 and B2 hit A1 almost at the exact same time). Usually, something will happen to suspend 3 seconds if someone is in the lane that long (someone shoots, the ball is passed to the player in the lane, or the ball is turned over), so most potential 3-second violations never materialize, even if officials would prefer to not call them. I understand your point, though, that officials exercise jury nullification by refusing to enforce rules that are bad, in their opinions.

Actually, what you described is a multiple foul. Even if it were a false multiple foul, how many times do you see officials call both? It is approximately the same time...not the exact same time.

There are a ton of times a year if we wanted to we could call a multiple foul. Just like we have decided that a double foul is appropriate for situations, we have decided that multiple fouls are "never" appropriate unless we want to just confuse the hell out of everyone and be a jerk and give a foul to multiple individuals for one play. Competent officials never suggest we are not using our integrity if we choose not to call a multiple foul (unless you are on this board of course). Double fouls are often called because two players are kind of being jerks, but we often call them when they do not fit the definition as one action clearly happened first, but we suggest it is a great "game management" tool.

Peace

I think "approximately" gives us the latitude to call a double even when one clearly happens first.

Multiple remains, and should remain, for the event where more than one player commits a flagrant foul at approximately the same time....don't let one off just because the other occurred.

I agree but we will have one player do something and clearly a delay and then the second player does something and there was a gap.

I get why it remains, but I have yet to see an appropriate time to call this. That does not mean that I will not see a time, I just do not think that time is coming anytime soon.

Peace