backcourt violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bbcowboy

2--Player dribbles parallel to the division line and adjacent to the division line in his frontcourt. While dribbling, he places one foot on the division line, but the other foot and the ball remain in the frontcourt. Is this a backcourt violation?

Next question.

Does the hand have to be in contact with the ball for the backcourt violation to be called? What if the foot in on the division line while the ball is mid-dribble (not being touched by the ball handler at that second), and then the foot comes off the division line back into the frontcourt when the dribbler next touches the ball?

9-3-1-Note: A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds. 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 citation above twice mentions out of bounds.

Boundary is mentioned once.

The division line is a boundary line, but it's not out of bounds.

The citation is 9-3-1-Note.

9-3 deals with Out Of Bounds.

9-9 deals with Backcourt.

I never check for the hand in contact with the ball when a dribbler touches the division line with his foot in this situation, I just sound my whistle for the backcourt violation and move on.

Is that technically and/or literally correct?

Or is it only correct by purpose and intent?

Or is it incorrect?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why didn't you say so earlier?

The poster did when he indicated "dribbling"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

The poster did when he indicated "dribbling"

Ah, young grasshopper, there are many parts to dribbling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

The poster did when he indicated "dribbling"

That would be the common sense assumption.

How many fans and inexperienced officials would think they have to explicitly state the ball returned to the player's hand?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

How many fans and inexperienced officials would think they have to explicitly state the ball returned to the player's hand?

How many experienced officials would think they have to explicitly state the ball returned to the player's hand?

Not sure about the relevance of either of these questions, but bottom line, the ball does have to return to the hand, both on a written test, and in a real game, for this to be a violation.

Any official that calls this violation when the ball first touches the backcourt, without waiting for the next offensive touch, could be open for a little criticism, maybe not from most fans, or from inexperienced officials, but from experienced officials observing, or a few knowledgeable fans, or perhaps even a few knowledgeable coaches, especially if the ball takes an odd bounce and bounces a few feet away from the dribbler, untouched, into the backcourt.

Even little kids seem to know the rule. If one officiates little kids long enough, eventually one will observe a little kid, who in this situation, knows that they can't be the first to touch the ball, so they follow the ball closely, with both hands ready to grab the ball after an opponent barely touches it. This, of course, never works. The dribbler either grabs the ball first, or the opponent grabs the ball first. I've been playing, coaching, officiating, and observing basketball games for fifty-five years and I've never observed this "play" work. Never. Ever. But it's always fun watching little kids try it. And, maybe, someday I'll see it work. There can always be a first time.



I've observed high school players, in this situation, avoid a backcourt violation by following the ball, but not touching it, oddly choosing an out of bounds violation instead of a backcourt violation, sometimes leading to an oddly advantageous throwin for the opponents.

Originally Posted by bbcowboy

Player dribbles parallel to the division line and adjacent to the division line in his frontcourt. While dribbling, he has both feet in the front court, but the ball touches the floor on the dribble in the backcourt. Is this a backcourt violation?

Regardless of the frontcourt status of the feet and the ball, this play (original post above) as written (before bbcowboy's Post #14 additional information), is never a backcourt violation. The ball touching the floor in the backcourt (alone) does not make this a backcourt violation. Something else (an offensive touch), unwritten in the original post, needs to happen for this to be a backcourt violation. If it's a controlled dribble, it's probably going to happen (offensive touch and thus, backcourt), but if the dribble takes an odd bounce and bounces a few feet away from the dribbler, untouched, into the backcourt, it doesn't become a backcourt violation until that offensive touch happens, so, in this specific case, it's important that officials don't sound a premature whistle.

While I may be at fault for not reading something into the original post that's definitely not there, one can also be faulted for reading something into the original post that's definitely not there. My takeaway point throughout this thread: The ball has to return to the hand, both on a written test, and in a real game, for this to be a violation, and I believe, especially for young'uns, that this is a valid point to make in situations like this.

[Raymond]

So I guess in your world if a player pushes off with his off hand in between dribbles it is not a player control foul since he's not touching the ball at that exact moment. I guess he gains and losses player control every time he bats the ball to the floor.

You type so much irrelevant information you lose yourself and forget what the original play was.

A player is dribbling in the front court. In between bats of the ball he steps on the division line. How is it not a backcourt violation since he has continuous player control?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

A player is dribbling in the front court. In between bats of the ball he steps on the division line. How is it not a backcourt violation since he has continuous player control?

I also believe that this is a backcourt violation, but I'm not sure that player control is the correct citation after reading the actual rule as written:

9-9-1: Backcourt: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So I guess in your world if a player pushes off with his off hand in between dribbles it is not a player control foul since he's not touching the ball at that exact moment. I guess he gains and losses player control every time he bats the ball to the floor.

Never said that.

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who
bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the
floor once or several times.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I also believe that this is a backcourt violation, but I'm not sure that player control is the correct citation after reading the actual rule as written:

9-9-1: Backcourt: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

All of that is irrelevant. A player who is dribbling has player control. If he steps on the division line, it's a backcourt violation. Doesn't matter if he is dribbling or holding the ball. Player Control = Possession.

4-4-1 accounts for players who DO NOT HAVE PLAYER CONTROL/POSSESSION.

A player who has PC meets all conditions of 9-9-1. He stepped into the back court while in possession of the ball. It is irrelevant if he does so while actually batting the ball or in between bats.

Quit using dictionary definitions. PC equals touching the ball whether there is contact or not with the ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

A player who is dribbling has player control. If he steps on the division line, it's a backcourt violation. He stepped into the back court while in possession of the ball. It is irrelevant if he does so while actually batting the ball or in between bats. PC equals touching the ball whether there is contact or not with the ball.

Agree with your definition of player control. Agree that this is a backcourt violation. Fuzzy on the irrelevant part. Touching seems to be relevant, not necessarily player control, to the backcourt rule.

9-9-1: Backcourt: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

No mention of player control in the rule (other then needing player control to establish team control).

4-4-1 seems to be say that if either the ball or the player touches backcourt it's the same as if both touched the backcourt.

4-4-1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player is touching the backcourt.

I'm still not certain, and I'm still looking for relevant citations.

Maybe 9-3-1-Note (A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds. 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) is the correct citation?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never said that.

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who
bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the
floor once or several times.

So why does it matter if he's actually touching the ball when he steps on the division line?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So why does it matter if he's actually touching the ball when he steps on the division line?

Because player control doesn't appear to be part of the backcourt rule.

"While in player control, a ball handler, or dribbler, must not step into the backcourt", would be nice, but it's not the rule.

That's the way I call it every time, but it's not the rule.

We need to throw in 4-4-1, or 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent, or something else I'm missing, to complete the rule interpretation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because player control doesn't appear to be part of the backcourt rule.

So if I'm holding the ball in the front court I can step on the division line? (Based on you totally overthinking the rule, you are saying that a player can legally do this)

How is that any different than stepping on the division line while dribbling the ball in the front court.

To quote another post: 4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.