The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   backcourt violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/104557-backcourt-violation.html)

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 02:59pm

Touch ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032825)
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)

Never said that.

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.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 03:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032828)
Never said that.

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.

What part of 9-9-1 doesn't apply to a player who is dribbling as opposed to a player holding the ball? 4-12-1 tells us there is no difference as to the ball's status. You even posted it yourself. So, as usual, you are arguing with yourself and making contradictory assertions.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 03:02pm

Holding, Dribbling ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032826)
I'll sit here and wait while you explain why a player with FC status holding the ball is any different than a player with FC status dribbling the ball ...

Because while both have player control, one is holding the ball, and one is dribbling the ball. And player control is not written into the backcourt rule.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 03:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032830)
Because while both have player control, one is holding the ball, and one is dribbling the ball. And player control is not written into the backcourt rule.

Based on your new interpretation of the BC rule, a player who is dribbling while having FC status can step into the backcourt between each bat of the ball.

Cool interp Bro.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 03:07pm

Purpose And Intent ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032829)
4-12-1 tells us there is no difference as to the ball's status.

The ball's status as in player control? Yes. But player control isn't mentioned in the backcourt rule (as written).

We need something additional to complete the interpretation, 4-4-1, or 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent.

I'll settle for purpose and intent, but would prefer 4-4-1, or 9-3-1-Note.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 03:09pm

Player Control ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032831)
What part of 9-9-1 doesn't apply? I'm waiting.

Doesn't apply to what? Sorry, not sure I understand your question other than to restate that player control is not written into the backcourt rule.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 03:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032833)
Doesn't apply to what? Sorry, not sure I understand your question other than to restate that player control is not written into the backcourt rule.

What part of player who is dribbling the ball and steps into the back court doesn't meet the requirements of 9-9-1?

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 03:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032832)
The ball's status as in player control? Yes. But player control isn't mentioned in the backcourt rule (as written).

We need something additional to complete the interpretation, 4-4-1, or 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent.

I'll settle for purpose and intent, but would prefer 4-4-1, or 9-3-1-Note.

4-4-1 is written to give the ball FC/BC status while in contact with a player who doesn't have PC. Irrelevant to this conversation.

9-9-1 is all that is needed.

A player who is dribbling is contact with the ball by RULEBOOK definition. Leave the Webster definition out of the conversation.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 03:24pm

Boundary ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032835)
9-9-1 is all that is needed.

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.

A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after ...

The ball has to be touched.

Not dribbled (which often doesn't involve touching).

Not player control (which often involves dribbling).

9-3-1-Note is great (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) but while it mentions boundary lines (like the division line) it also specifically mentions out of bounds violations.

Purpose and intent?

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 03:25pm

Definitions ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032835)
Leave the Webster definition out of the conversation.

I believe that all my definitions have been NFHS definitions.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 03:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032837)
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.

A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after ...

The ball has to be touched.

Not dribbled (which often doesn't involve touching).

Not player control (which often involves dribbling).

9-3-1-Note is great (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) but while it mentions boundary lines (like the division line) it also specifically mentions out of bounds violations.

Purpose and intent?

4-12-1 tells us there is no difference between holding and dribbling. You cited it then ignored it. TYPICAL

Like I said, in your games a player can dribble while jumping back forth over the division line.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 03:42pm

Purpose And Intent ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032839)
4-12-1 tells us there is no difference between holding and dribbling.

No it doesn't. Never did. Never said it.

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

Holding is holding. Dribbling is dribbling. If a player is doing either one of these two completely different things, he has player control.

A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after ...

The ball has to be touched.

Not dribbled (which often doesn't involve touching).

Not player control (which often involves dribbling, dribbling that often doesn't involve touching).

The rule isn't, "A player shall not be the first in control of 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.

The ball has to be touched.

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.

We may not call it that literal way because we use 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent.

Without 9-3-1-Note a dribbler stepping on an out of bounds boundary wouldn't be out of bounds.

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.

We need something like 9-3-1-Note for a dribbler stepping on a division line boundary on a backcourt violation.

Or just purpose and intent.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 04:02pm

If a player has PC, his status determines the ball's status. If he steps into the BC, the ball has BC status. That philosophy is covered in the 3-point dribbling rule when advancing the ball into the FC. The ball still has BC status in between batting of the ball b/c the PLAYER WHO IS IN POSSESSION (THE DRIBBLER) still has BC status.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 06:03pm

Status ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032842)
If a player has PC, his status determines the ball's status.

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.


The rule doesn't say that. There's nothing about player control in 4-4-1. "In contact" doesn't always, or necessarily, mean player control.

A ball in contact with the player means just that, the ball is contacting (touching) the player.

Back to basics.

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.

The ball has to be touched.

Not dribbled (which often doesn't involve touching).

Not player control (which often involves dribbling, dribbling that often doesn't involve touching).

The rule isn't, "A player shall not be the first in control of 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".

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

There must be a note, an exception, another rule, an interpretation, a rule intent, or something else that directs officials to make a backcourt violation call when a dribbler in the frontcourt puts a foot into the backcourt even though the dribbler isn't touching the ball at the time.

In the specific situation we're discussing, 9-9-1, alone, as written, won't do the job.

Something else is needed.

Other than purpose and intent, I can't find it. 9-3-1-Note comes close, but it's only specifically about out of bounds.

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.

I hope that you find a citation. I'm enjoying the discussion. Closure would be nice. It's not a contest about who's smarter (you are) it's about figuring this out by what's in the rulebook, assuming that it's there (and not another NFHS oversight).

There's no way I'm calling this any other way than the way both of us have been calling this for many years, it's a backcourt violation when a dribbler in the frontcourt puts a foot into the backcourt even though the dribbler isn't touching the ball at the time.

If we were to pass on this call, even the most mild mannered coach in the world would find himself sitting on a cold bus out in the parking lot, or sitting in a locker room surrounded by smelly, sweaty socks.

BillyMac Sat May 25, 2019 12:00pm

Help ...
 
Both Raymond and I seem to agree that it's a backcourt violation when a dribbler in the frontcourt puts a foot into the backcourt even though the dribbler isn't touching the ball at the time.

He believes that 9-9-1, as written, alone, fully supports our interpretation.

I believe that 9-9-1, as written, does not, alone (based on the phrase "touch the ball"), fully support our interpretation. There must be a note, an exception, another rule, an interpretation, or a rule intent, to fully support our interpretation.

We've both spent considerable scholarly effort trying to support our side of the issue.

I've noticed that other Forum members have been quite hesitant to join the debate (it's been ten days).

Is it because Forum members believe that, like a few other NFHS rule interpretations, there is a "hole" in the rules, something is definitively missing, and, with no closure possible, members have decided to stay out of the debate?

Or, is it because Forum members believe that both Raymond and I have incorrectly interpreted 9-9-1, that it really isn't a backcourt violation when a dribbler in the frontcourt puts a foot into the backcourt when the dribbler isn't touching the ball at the time (I seriously doubt this)?

Or nobody else cares?

I'm considering sending this issue up the IAABO chain of command to get a definitive answer, but would rather exhaust all possible resources here on the Forum first.

Can any other Forum members please weigh in on this issue (if you just don't care, that's fine)?

For example, should 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), by purpose and intent, be extended to include all boundaries (like the division line), and not just be confined to out of bounds boundary lines (as written)?

Could it be that simple?

That (purpose and intent) would certainly satisfy me. I've been using 9-3-1-Note to make this dribbler backcourt call for almost forty years, and only recently discovered that 9-3-1-Note seems to only specifically apply to out of bounds violations (as written).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1