backcourt violation?

[bbcowboy]

Yes, in both scenarios,
the ball bounces back into his hand.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bbcowboy

Yes, in both scenarios, the ball bounces back into his hand.

Why didn't you say so earlier?

Backcourt violations.

[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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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, or 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.







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.

How about this Billy? Wheb somebody says a player is dribbling, we're going to assume the ball returns to his hands unless it is explicitly stated that it did not.

That's what normal people do.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

When somebody says a player is dribbling, we're going to assume the ball returns to his hands unless it is explicitly stated that it did not.

Here's the explicit qualifying statement, the ending statement of the original post's description the situation: "but the ball touches the floor on the dribble in the backcourt". That's how the description ends.

Are you saying that me stating that he ball has to return to the hand for this to be a violation is not a valid point to make in situations (written test, or real life game) like this?