backcourt violation?

[chapmaja]

Here is how I would look at it.

R1 is dribbling and has established a complete position in the front court. He then takes a step backwards during his dribble and steps across the center line into the back court. One of two things happens.

(a)He touches the ball while his foot is in the back court and as a result it is a back court violation, or (b) he realizes that he has stepped into the back court, doesn't touch the ball and lets it bounce before reestablishing his position in the front court and then touches the ball.

In (b) he has never touched the ball in the back court (while in the back court) and the ball has never touched the court in the back court, the ball has never established back court status.

Basically I would need to see the player stop dribbling the ball when he realizes he has gone into the back court, get back into the front court and resume the dribble for me to not call a back court violation. I can say in my years of officiating I have never seen a player as aware as this and thus avoid the BC violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

… 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)?

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I can say in my years of officiating I have never seen a player as aware as this and thus avoid the BC violation.

I've really got to be 100% fully convinced to call this any other way than the way both Raymond and I have been calling this for many years, calling 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 I were to pass on this call, I'd be up late that night filling out an ejection report. And I really can't afford to miss any of my beauty sleep.

chapmaja: Thanks for the new interesting take on this issue.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here is how I would look at it.

R1 is dribbling and has established a complete position in the front court. He then takes a step backwards during his dribble and steps across the center line into the back court. One of two things happens.

(a)He touches the ball while his foot is in the back court and as a result it is a back court violation, or (b) he realizes that he has stepped into the back court, doesn't touch the ball and lets it bounce before reestablishing his position in the front court and then touches the ball.

In (b) he has never touched the ball in the back court (while in the back court) and the ball has never touched the court in the back court, the ball has never established back court status.

Basically I would need to see the player stop dribbling the ball when he realizes he has gone into the back court, get back into the front court and resume the dribble for me to not call a back court violation. I can say in my years of officiating I have never seen a player as aware as this and thus avoid the BC violation.

What you describe is not an interrupted dribble because it is a deliberate action. If you believe that the player has not violated, I would advise you to take another read through the text of the rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've really got to be 100% fully convinced to call this any other way than the way both Raymond and I have been calling this for many years, calling 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, I'd be up late that night filling out an ejection report. And I really can't afford to miss any of my beauty sleep.

chapmaja: Thanks for the new interesting take on this issue.

If the player is dribbling, then the player is by definition in control of the ball, hence a step into the backcourt is a violation by rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the player is dribbling, then the player is by definition in control of the ball, hence a step into the backcourt is a violation by rule.

Yes, absolutely, the player is dribbling and the player is in control of the ball, but that is not what the rule states.

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 sometimes doesn't involve touching the ball).

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

"A dribbler, must not step into the backcourt", would be nice, but it's not the rule as written.

[Camron Rust]

While I agree that is what the rule seems to say. I don't, however, believe that is what is intended.

I believe the OOB ruling establishes the principle that a dribbler is treated as if they're continuously touching the ball throughout the dribble with regards to boundary/location issues.

I don't believe the rules makers wanted to require officials to have to judge whether the dribbler was touching the ball the moment the dribbler steps on the division line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I agree that is what the rule seems to say. I don't, however, believe that is what is intended. I believe the OOB ruling establishes the principle that a dribbler is treated as if they're continuously touching the ball throughout the dribble with regards to boundary/location issues. I don't believe the rules makers wanted to require officials to have to judge whether the dribbler was touching the ball the moment the dribbler steps on the division line.

Camron Rust: Thanks for clarifying what I've believed to be true through most of this thread.

Well said. That's the way I've been calling it for a very long time.

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, should extend to include all boundaries (like the division line), and not just be confined to out of bounds boundary lines.

Stupid NFHS. If the NFHS intended it to be interpreted this way, if they want it to be interpreted this way, if they wanted the written rule to match the way we all have been calling it for a very long time, then they should clean up the rulebook.

One possible idea, a rule addition:

Section 9 Backcourt
9-9-1-NOTE: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or
behind the division line, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she
is on or behind the division line.

I'll wait for a few more replies, and then send my rule addition up the IAABO chain of command.

[bucky]

I understand both sides but lean toward the idea that originally, officials indeed were not going to split hairs on whether a dribbler was touching the ball while touching the BC.

Now, perhaps another piece of the puzzle is case 7.1.1 Sit D, which appears to possibly conflict with rule 9-3-1. The case indicates a dribble is started by an IB player, that same player is OOB, and that player is allowed to return IB and legally continue dribbling.

So a player is dribbling, steps OOB while not touching the ball, returns IB, and continues dribbling.

Seems to be the same NOTE in 9-3-1.

Also, why could't the case apply to the division line. Player jumps from FC, saves ball from going into BC by throwing it to FC, players lands in BC, returns to FC, and continues dribbling. Seems legal enough or does it equate to 9-3-1 and make it illegal?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

7.1.1 Sit D, which appears to possibly conflict with rule 9-3-1. The case indicates a dribble is started by an IB player, that same player is OOB, and that player is allowed to return IB and legally continue dribbling. So a player is dribbling, steps OOB while not touching the ball, returns IB, and continues dribbling.

Nice catch bucky.

7.1.1 SITUATION D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds; (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Illegal in (c) as the controlled toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble, dribbling a second time after picking up the ball is an illegal dribble violation. (4-15-5; 4-15-6d; 4-35; 9-5)

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).

They do appear to be in conflict with each other.

7.1.1 SITUATION D says that one can be legally out of bounds and inbounds during a dribble if one is not touching the ball while one is out of bounds. (A1 started a dribble, was then out of bounds, and then legally came back inbounds to legally continue the dribble).

9-3-1-Note says that one cannot be legally out of bounds and inbounds during a dribble, even if one is not touching the ball while one is out of bounds.

This may deserving of an entirely new thread.

WrestleMania 37 "The Grandest Stage of Them All": 7.1.1 SITUATION D versus 9-3-1-Note.