backcourt violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Leave the Webster definition out of the conversation.

I believe that all my definitions have been NFHS definitions.