backcourt violation?

[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]

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).

[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.