Another backcourt
 

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 where W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

Are you ABSOLUTELY certain the ball hit the line?:cool:

Barium ...
 

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); 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.

Check. Check. Check. Check. Backcourt violation.

Billy is correct.

Said another way:

The ball (in team control for W, and in W's FC) returned to the BC when it bounced on the division line.

Who was the last to touch it before that bounce? W.
Who was the next to touch it after that bounce? W.


Violation.

The fact that it also bounced in the FC is irrelevant. It did return to the back and who touched it last before and next after that even is all that matters.

I am not calling a violation on this play. I think the intent of the rule is that the player should be in the backcourt during the touch to be a violation.

Not Your Father's Backcourt Violation ...
 

(Apologies to Oldsmobile.)

I'm probably not calling a violation either, not because of intent and purpose, but because, on this odd bang bang play, I seriously doubt that I could check off all four elements and figure out it's a backcourt violation before it's too late to call. And I also doubt that I'll get any complaints from players, coaches, or fans.

So a player could, after establishing control in the front court, dribble the ball onto the division line all day long?

No. My statement was specific to the original post not to every possible backcourt situation.

The intent is that the offense play within the 42' x 50' (FED, and I'm not getting hung up on the width of the division line) rectangle that defines the front court (while also not prematurely killing the play that would give the defense an advantage).

They didn't.

Call the violation.

No players left the frontcourt and the ball has frontcourt status when recovered. I am not worried about the repercussions of not calling this a violation.

Once the ball touches the backcourt after being last touched by the offense, they cant touch the ball again until its touched by the defense.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Soooooo, W1, in the FC, could throw the ball, with back spin, into the BC, so that the ball returns to the FC, where W1 could recover?

Just teasing.;)

What about a ball that hits the sideline but the player who last touched it doesn't leave the court?

You are trying to compare an apple to an orange. Both fruit but still different.

But your fruit is sour.

Simply put, you're wrong to argue this shouldn't be called. There is no argument to not call it any more than not calling a ball sailing OOB where A1 attempts to save it but it bounces on the sideline in doing so. The only difference is that in the division line case, team B is allowed to recover it and play on while team A isn't.

Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

Unfortunately, I’ve run into several officials with this kind of attitude. Specifically, those who state I’m not calling such and such because I don’t like it.
Mostly, I ignore them and they languish at the subvarsity level. For the occasional ones who make it to the varsity level, I use the block feature.

Wow. Just wow. This isn't some quirk of the rules. Team A gets an advantage by using a larger space than they're allowed. Do you let them step on the OOB line too as long as it isn't too much?

How can we ever expect to have consistency when people like you consciously choose to set aside basic rules? Pathetic.

It's one thing to miss it like Billy says as it's a very close play with a lot of stuff going on. The other is to not call a violation that would give the other team the ball because you simply don't think it's "fair". There are moments, as an official, to apply "fair" to a game and the rules, but this, IMO, isn't one of them.

1. This is not a "basic" rule situation.
2. I will probably never see this play and if I do, the chances that I will be standing at the division line to see the ball actually strike the line is even more unlikely. I am not going to be the guy who goes after that "quirky" play just to prove his rules knowledge.
3. Consistency? Don't be so dramatic. No calls on this play are not running rampant.

Have a great day guys. Thanks for the discussion.

Backcourt violation all day long. If in position, should be no harder to see than if a player stepped on the division line. Or no harder to see than if the ball hit the side or end line.

Not sure how such a simple ruling garnered so much discussion. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfZYht9K0k

8:05 shows this play happening in an NBA game and being called.

It is not the same play described in the original post.

What about it makes it enough different that you would not call the OP but (presumably) call the NBA play?

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.

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 . . .

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?

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".

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.

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".

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Correct, because the ball, for this specific purpose, is not considered part of the frontcourt. Otherwise they just make it very confusing. Similar to granting Team Control during inbounds for cases of fouls only, even though technically TC doesn't yet exist.

I would not pass on an OOB call where the ball hits the line. There is nothing else to take into consideration when the ball strikes the line. A backcourt violation comes with caveats that don't exists with the OOB violation and you know it.

I see your point and it is well taken.

Thanks. THat's helpful.

It reminds me of some posts here a long time ago to the effect of: For a BC violation to happen, it's not necessary that A touch the ball in the FC or that A touch the ball in the BC. Only that the ball reach the FC, and the BC an A is the last to touch before and first to touch after.

Another reason to call this (and not ignore the rule) is that if you don't call it, you are putting your partner(s) in a tough position. If I'm the C on a play like this, there is a chance that I see the ball bounce in the BC. If I was 100% that the ball hit the BC, I'm coming to get this violation from the C if the T misses it or doesn't know the rule.

This isn't a judgement call/trust your partner call -- it's an obvious (although unusual) violation and I can't defend passing just because it's the Trail's line to call.

For those who are arguing not to call this, what would you do if your partner came and got it?

Still doesn't matter, but OK. Do you ignore it when A1 (in the FC) throws a bounce pass across the court to A2 (also in the FC) such that it bounces on the division line?

In the end, you really have no rational argument for not calling this. If you want to write the rules, get on the rules committee. Otherwise, being a renegade only makes it hard for everyone.

This is the most annoying thing. It ticks me off when I hear a coach say "well the ref we had the last game didn't call that" or "the ref we had last time didn't care that her undershirt wasn't the right color". Just call the game the way the rules are written.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

attribution theory
 

Attribution theory: the imparting of characteristics to a person just because they are in a certain position [of authority] despite the fact that said person does not possess those attributes.

I have had so-called "state level officials" tell me in a close game: "let's not foul out A1 because that is the best player on their team"

To which I respond: "if A1 fouls their self out, then that's what they do"

*Maybe this is why I have not been selected to officiate state tournaments?

Sometimes the best response is no response. Veteran "state" officials often have the ears of the powers-that-be. If you don't agree with what they are saying, apply camp etiquette by nodding your head as the words pass through one ear and out the other.

My mouth has been far more harmful to my career than anything I've done on the court.

+1,000