Another backcourt

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

The ball in the training video has backcourt status; which the narrator makes a point of.

The ball originally discussed has frontcourt status.

No, the ball has backcourt status when it bounces in the backcourt.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the ball has backcourt status when it bounces in the backcourt.

Sure does. It then has frontcourt status when it bounced back into the frontcourt, assuming the ball strikes the floor before it is touched by W1.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by CJP

Sure does. It then has frontcourt status when it bounced back into the frontcourt, assuming the ball strikes the floor before it is touched by W1.

What surprises me in this discussion is that you seem to believe that the defensive team won't know this was a violation. In my experience watching games, players and coaches are well aware that offensive team bouncing the ball on the midcourt line results in a BC violation. Maybe the players and coaches here are just smarter than where you are . . .

[Valley Man]

You are right Raymond .. I amended my original post

White has the ball in their front court. W1 throws an errant pass to W2. The ball sails past W2 for the corner where the division line and the side line meet. Before the ball goes out of bounds or into the back court, W2 saves it behind her back. The ball hits on the division line with English, bounces on the division line, then bounces back into the front court striking the floor once before W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

What surprises me in this discussion is that you seem to believe that the defensive team won't know this was a violation. In my experience watching games, players and coaches are well aware that offensive team bouncing the ball on the midcourt line results in a BC violation. Maybe the players and coaches here are just smarter than where you are . . .

Don't think too deeply about what you think I believe. My thoughts on why this is a no call, for me personally, is not as simple as you described.

There are some plays where a call, even if correct, can have a much more negative effect on the game then a no-call. I don't think there are many but there are some. I think this is one of those plays as it is EXACTLY described. Keep in mind, this is the first time I ever gave this play any thought and if I encounter this situation and it plays out different from what I have in my mind now, I will reverse my position.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by CJP

There are some plays where a call, even if correct, can have a much more negative effect on the game then a no-call.

For which team exactly and why are you making this decision? As an impartial arbiter of the game the "effect" of one's calls shouldn't have any impact on the job at hand.

"game management" has it's place, however enforcing the rules > "game management".

[CJP]

Originally Posted by deecee

For which team exactly and why are you making this decision? As an impartial arbiter of the game the "effect" of one's calls shouldn't have any impact on the job at hand.

"game management" has it's place, however enforcing the rules > "game management".

I have had an official tell me to call 5 fouls as fast as I can on problem players to get them out of the game so the kid does not ruin the game. I disagree with that. I have had an official tell me to rule a block/charge based on the score spread (team is down 30, they will get the call). I disagree with that. I have had officials tell me to hold my whistle on a foul 80 feet from the basket. I kind of agree with this depending on the outcome of the contact.
These officials are "state tournament" level officials. I guess I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I will continue to work hard on every play and put myself in the best position possible to make the correct decision. I will continue to give it 100% when I am on the court no matter the level. If I can do these things, no one will care if I pass on the call described in the original post.

[deecee]

The only one I agree with is a bang/bang block/charge in a blowout. The team ahead will be the "offender" every time.

Being a "state" official doesn't mean they are the most qualified unfortunately....When in Rome

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

I have had an official tell me to call 5 fouls as fast as I can on problem players to get them out of the game so the kid does not ruin the game. I disagree with that. I have had an official tell me to rule a block/charge based on the score spread (team is down 30, they will get the call). I disagree with that. I have had officials tell me to hold my whistle on a foul 80 feet from the basket. I kind of agree with this depending on the outcome of the contact.
These officials are "state tournament" level officials. I guess I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I will continue to work hard on every play and put myself in the best position possible to make the correct decision. I will continue to give it 100% when I am on the court no matter the level. If I can do these things, no one will care if I pass on the call described in the original post.

You might get away with it, but that does not make it right. Are you also going to pass on a similar save that bounces on the sideline instead? Why or why not?

[rsl]

Originally Posted by CJP

There are some plays where a call, even if correct, can have a much more negative effect on the game then a no-call.

If you are savvy enough to make this no-call, you should be savvy enough to make a "no-post" on this thread.

Posting that "I am not going to enforce a rule just because" will always invoke a negative response on this board.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by rsl

If you are savvy enough to make this no-call, you should be savvy enough to make a "no-post" on this thread.

Posting that "I am not going to enforce a rule just because" will always invoke a negative response on this board.

I see your point and it is well taken.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by CJP

Sure does. It then has frontcourt status when it bounced back into the frontcourt, assuming the ball strikes the floor before it is touched by W1.

Partially correct. If the player that touches the ball first when it has "frontcourt" status was on the same team (offense) that was last to touch it when it gained "backcourt" status then the ball still is considered part of the "backcourt" (silly logic) and is a violation.

Where, when, how many times the ball bounces has little/no bearing on the status and violation when the ball is touched in relation to "frontcourt".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Partially correct. If the player that touches the ball first when it has "frontcourt" status was on the same team (offense) that was last to touch it when it gained "backcourt" status then the ball still is considered part of the "backcourt" (silly logic) and is a violation.

Where, when, how many times the ball bounces has little/no bearing on the status and violation when the ball is touched in relation to "frontcourt".

No...it is not still considered part of the backcourt. The 10 second count that started when it touched the backcourt would now stop because the ball now has frontcourt status.

The violation is that team A is not allowed to be the next to touch a ball that had been in the backcourt previously, even if it is now in the frontcourt, if they were the last to touch it before it returned to the backcourt.

Where the ball is when it is touched doesn't have anything to do with the rule.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No...it is not still considered part of the backcourt. The 10 second count that started when it touched the backcourt would now stop because the ball now has frontcourt status.

The violation is that team A is not allowed to be the next to touch a ball that had been in the backcourt previously, even if it is now in the frontcourt, if they were the last to touch it before it returned to the backcourt.

Where the ball is when it is touched doesn't have anything to do with the rule.

So are you saying this violation is something other than a "backcourt" or "over and back" violation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

So are you saying this violation is something other than a "backcourt" or "over and back" violation?

No. It is a backcourt violation...but the violation is not for touching the ball in the backcourt. It is for being the first to touch a ball that returned to the backcourt regardless of whether it remained in the backcourt.