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)

bbcowboy Sat May 11, 2019 08:19pm

backcourt violation?
 
1--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?
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?
Thanks.

ODog Sat May 11, 2019 11:04pm

You're omitting a key detail. YOU'RE saying he's dribbling in frontcourt, but we can't be certain you really know what that means (unless you're an official). But taking you literally, both are violations.

1 -- If he's dribbling the ball from backcourt to frontcourt, and all three things (two feet and ball) have yet to touch the frontcourt, then no. But as you describe it, he's already firmly established in frontcourt (i.e., nothing touching backcourt), and then dribbles ball so it touches backcourt violation.
2 -- As you describe it, he's already firmly established in frontcourt (i.e., nothing touching backcourt), and then steps on division line violation.

BillyMac Sun May 12, 2019 10:10am

No Backcourt Violation Until A Touch ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
1--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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODog (Post 1032718)
1 ... But as you describe it, he's already firmly established in frontcourt (i.e., nothing touching backcourt), and then dribbles ball so it touches backcourt … violation.

As described, no backcourt violation.

No backcourt violation unless he touches the ball as it bounces off the floor in the backcourt back to his hand.

If he never touches the ball it's just a ball that bounces into the backcourt, and thus, no backcourt violation.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.


Do not confuse this backcourt play with 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.


9-3-1-Note refers to an out of bounds violation, not a backcourt violation.

Two different animals.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.I...=0&w=412&h=174

JRutledge Sun May 12, 2019 09:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
1--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?

When a player is dribbling from the BC to the FC, the player must have touched the FC with both feet an the ball. If the player is holding the ball, he has to have both feet completely in the FC. Then if he were to start a dribble and the ball touched the FC, that would be a violation.

Not very clear what happened first on your play. So it is possible this is not a violation of the player never completely came into FC status by the things I just described.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
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?
Thanks.

Again if the player never reached FC status during the dribble, then the answer is no.

Peace

Altor Mon May 13, 2019 08:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrutledge (Post 1032730)
When a player is dribbling from the BC to the FC, the player must have touched the FC with both feet an the ball. If the player is holding the ball, he has to have both feet completely in the FC. Then if he were to start a dribble and the ball touched the FC BC, that would be a violation.

fify

bbcowboy Mon May 13, 2019 09:06am

In my above scenario, the player has already been established in the front court for several seconds, before the described actions.

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 09:21am

Follow The Bouncing Ball ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1032730)
So it is possible this is not a violation of the player never completely came into FC status by the things I just described.

Agree, but with hindsight, that's not what the original poster meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032735)
... the player has already been established in the front court for several seconds, before the described actions.

Even if the "player ... completely came into FC status (two feet and the ball had frontcourt status) ... this is ... not a violation" unless he touches the ball as it bounces off the floor in the backcourt back to his hand.

If he never touches the ball it's just a ball that bounces into the backcourt, and thus, no backcourt violation.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.t...=0&w=300&h=300

sdoebler Mon May 13, 2019 11:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032735)
In my above scenario, the player has already been established in the front court for several seconds, before the described actions.

If front court status had been established both situations would be a backcourt violation

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 11:37am

Situation 1, No Backcourt ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sdoebler (Post 1032739)
If front court status had been established both situations would be a backcourt violation

Totally disagree with sdoebler's interpretation of Situation 1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
1--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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032721)
As described, no backcourt violation.

No backcourt violation unless he touches the ball as it bounces off the floor in the backcourt back to his hand.

If he never touches the ball it's just a ball that bounces into the backcourt, and thus, no backcourt violation.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.


Do not confuse this backcourt play with 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.


9-3-1-Note refers to an out of bounds violation, not a backcourt violation.

The ball could bounce, roll, and remain stationary, in the backcourt and not be a backcourt violation until it's touched by an offensive player.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.1...=0&w=300&h=300

sdoebler Mon May 13, 2019 11:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032740)
Totally disagree with sdoebler's interpretation of Situation 1:

I'm assuming the ball came back to his hand,

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 11:54am

Never Assume ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sdoebler (Post 1032741)
I'm assuming the ball came back to his hand,

https://youtu.be/svkgOsr7pUc

It doesn't say that in the original post.

Young'uns, or distracted veterans, may sound the whistle as soon as the ball touches the backcourt.

Anticipate the play, not the call.

Most of us realize that we have to wait for the offensive touch to call a backcourt violation.

Who knows? A defender could come in, make a steal, leading to a dunk down the other end?

More importantly, it's not the correct call.

bob jenkins Mon May 13, 2019 12:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032740)


The ball could bounce, roll, and remain stationary, in the backcourt for eight minutes and not be a backcourt violation until it's touched by an offensive player.

I agree it wouldn't be a backcourt violation. Instead, it would be a 10-second violation.

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 01:07pm

Hyperbole ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1032743)
I agree it wouldn't be a backcourt violation. Instead, it would be a 10-second violation.

Nice catch (I fixed it).

I have to watch out when I use hyperbole on the Forum. We've got some pretty sharp members that have been around the block several times and have been to more than just a few rodeos.

And to be honest, though I would hate to admit it, I probably would not start counting. Of course, I would be wrong.

Still being honest, even if a defender flicked (no control) the ball into the backcourt, I'm not 100% sure that I would start counting until an offensive player touched it. Again, I would be wrong.

At least I would get these situations correct on a written test. That has to count for something. Right?

bbcowboy Mon May 13, 2019 01:28pm

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

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 01:44pm

Backcourt ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032747)
Yes, in both scenarios, the ball bounces back into his hand.

Why didn't you say so earlier?

Backcourt violations.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Cv_bsCF5aB...c/s640/YDS.jpg

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 02:07pm

Advanced Question ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
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 Mon May 13, 2019 04:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032748)
Why didn't you say so earlier?

The poster did when he indicated "dribbling";)

BillyMac Mon May 13, 2019 05:18pm

Does Anyone Refer To Grasshopper Any More ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1032752)
The poster did when he indicated "dribbling"

Ah, young grasshopper, there are many parts to dribbling.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=238&h=172

Raymond Tue May 14, 2019 08:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1032752)
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 Tue May 14, 2019 09:40am

The Untouchables ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032762)
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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=242&h=162

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
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 Tue May 14, 2019 10:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032764)
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.



https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=242&h=162



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 Tue May 14, 2019 10:43am

No Ifs, Ands, Or Buts ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032767)
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?

Raymond Tue May 14, 2019 10:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032768)
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.

Everyone, other than you knew what he meant

Anything to keep your word and post count up.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Tue May 14, 2019 10:58am

Horton Hears A Who ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032769)
Everyone, other than you knew what he meant

Everyone? Then why did bob jenkins agree with me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1032743)
I agree it wouldn't be a backcourt violation.

I kinda knew what bbcowboy meant, but wanted it further qualified, which bbcowboy kindly replied to.

Note: Original question could have been presented better, with ODog's and JRutledge's questions regarding frontcourt status, and my question about a second offensive touch.

Again,
Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032768)
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?

Valid point, or not?

BillyMac Tue May 14, 2019 11:15am

Talk Amongst Yourselves (Coffee Talk) ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032769)
Anything to keep your word and post count up.

Would like to see some discussion regarding original post situation #2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcowboy (Post 1032717)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032749)
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?

Maybe I've been doing it wrong all these years.

JRutledge Tue May 14, 2019 12:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032769)
Everyone, other than you knew what he meant

Anything to keep your word and post count up.

Basically. And he posted two more times with multiple quotes after you made this comment. LOL!!!!

Peace

BillyMac Tue May 14, 2019 01:03pm

I'm A Cheap Bastard ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1032775)
... posted two more times ...

I must maintain my Esteemed Forum Member status. If I don't post enough, I lose my Esteemed Forum Member status, but more importantly, I lose my Esteemed Forum Member discount and have to pay Regular Forum Member annual dues.

LRZ Tue May 14, 2019 01:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032777)
I must maintain my Esteemed Forum Member status. If I don't post enough, I lose my Esteemed Forum Member status, but more importantly, I lose my Esteemed Forum Member discount and have to pay Regular Forum Member annual dues.

If you slow down--just a bit--I'll open a kickstarter account to cover your dues.

BillyMac Tue May 14, 2019 02:17pm

I Miss Mark Padgett ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1032778)
If you slow down--just a bit--I'll open a kickstarter account to cover your dues.

It appears that Mark Padgett has hung up is whistle for good. Hopefully he didn't get it stuck in his pants zipper.

He always told me that he was the Official Forum treasurer and that I must send him my annual Official Forum dues, in small, unmarked, non-sequential serial numbers, US currency. And would always give me the Esteemed Forum Member annual dues discount.

Who's the Official Forum treasurer now? Do I still get my Esteemed Forum Member annual dues discount? Must Official Forum annual dues still be paid in small, unmarked, non-sequential serial numbers, US currency? Or can I just provide my checking account routing number and account number?

I miss Mark Padgett. When he wasn't joking around, which was almost all the time, he had a lot to add to Forum discussions regarding basketball officiating, especially recreation level basketball.

I also loved his "hard nosed, blue collar, south side of Chicago" philosophy.

Even though he lived in Oregon, and was a pot smoking, tree hugging, pig heart transplanted, Jewish hippie, he was always, first, a proud Chicagoan.

And, of course, he was our resident Law and Order expert.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.L...=0&w=292&h=164

bucky Tue May 14, 2019 10:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032768)
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?

I will say it regarding situations like this.

You quoted it as "the ball touches the floor on the dribble in the backcourt."

"On the dribble" is the key phrase for me. If it did not return to the hand, then it would not be a dribble. To me that sounds far more logical than your point.

Love you BM.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 07:39am

Valid Point ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1032785)
"On the dribble" is the key phrase for me. If it did not return to the hand, then it would not be a dribble.

Not going to quibble about the wording (yes, it could have been the start of an interrupted dribble), but bottom line, my point is a valid point and is not incorrect. Two thought it wasn't backcourt, many didn't, can we move on to Situation #2, which can lead to an interesting discussion.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1032772

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 10:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032791)
Not going to quibble about the wording (yes, it could have been the start of an interrupted dribble)...

It's not an interrupted dribble until the ball contacts somebody's body part other than either of the dribbler's hands.


Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032791)
.. Situation #2, which can lead to an interesting discussion.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1032772

The only way this is a confusing situation is if you believe the player is no longer in PC during a dribble when the ball is not in contact with his hand.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 11:45am

"Or", Not "And" ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032800)
The only way this is a confusing situation is if you believe the player is no longer in PC during a dribble when the ball is not in contact with his hand.

At first, I really liked the reference to player control as a simple way of answering my question.

But there's not a lot about player control in the backcourt rule (some, but not a lot that may be relevant), but there is a little bit more about touching in the rule.

Note: This is the commonly accepted Forum definition, not the NFHS definition:

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control
when coming from a throw-in); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must
be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after
the ball has been in the backcourt.


NFHS 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.

I think that I possibly found a better citation:

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 (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

It states "or", not "and", so while 9-3-1-Note may only apply to out of bounds, not backcourt, 4-4-1 does most certainly apply to backcourt, so a dribbling player does not have to have his hand in contact with the ball for a backcourt violation to be called in Situation #2.

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. Been doing it that way for almost forty years, thinking I was doing it because of 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent. I guess that my interpretation, that I believe to be correct, is based on 4-4-1, not the other citations.

I'm not 100% sure, so would appreciate further discussion (with citations).

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 11:58am

Interrupted Dribble ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032800)
It's not an interrupted dribble until the ball contacts somebody's body part other than either of the dribbler's hands.

Certainly one way to end up with an interrupted dribble, but not the only way.

4-15-5: An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the
dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 12:44pm

So I guess in your world if a player pushes off with his off hand in between dribbles it is not a player control foul since he's not touching the ball at that exact moment. I guess he gains and losses player control every time he bats the ball to the floor.

You type so much irrelevant information you lose yourself and forget what the original play was.

A player is dribbling in the front court. In between bats of the ball he steps on the division line. How is it not a backcourt violation since he has continuous player control?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 12:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032806)
Certainly one way to end up with an interrupted dribble, but not the only way.



4-15-5: An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the

dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.


I know the definition of ian nterrupted dribble. I don't see what your point is.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 01:54pm

Not Sure ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032809)
A player is dribbling in the front court. In between bats of the ball he steps on the division line. How is it not a backcourt violation since he has continuous player control?

I also believe that this is a backcourt violation, but I'm not sure that player control is the correct citation after reading the actual rule as written:

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.

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 (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 02:00pm

Momentarily Get Away From Him ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032810)
I know the definition of an interrupted dribble. I don't see what your point is.

I'm sure that you do, just wanted to clean your post up a little so others know that there are other ways for a dribble to become interrupted without necessarily contacting a player's body part other than his hands. Other examples include the ball deflecting (uncontrolled) off of his hands (judgment call), or the ball momentarily getting away from him.

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 02:24pm

Holding Or Dribbling ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032809)
So I guess in your world if a player pushes off with his off hand in between dribbles it is not a player control foul since he's not touching the ball at that exact moment. I guess he gains and losses player control every time he bats the ball to the floor.

Never said that.

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

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who
bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the
floor once or several times.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 02:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032813)
I also believe that this is a backcourt violation, but I'm not sure that player control is the correct citation after reading the actual rule as written:

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.

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 (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt.

All of that is irrelevant. A player who is dribbling has player control. If he steps on the division line, it's a backcourt violation. Doesn't matter if he is dribbling or holding the ball. Player Control = Possession.

4-4-1 accounts for players who DO NOT HAVE PLAYER CONTROL/POSSESSION.

A player who has PC meets all conditions of 9-9-1. He stepped into the back court while in possession of the ball. It is irrelevant if he does so while actually batting the ball or in between bats.

Quit using dictionary definitions. PC equals touching the ball whether there is contact or not with the ball.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 02:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032819)
Never said that.

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

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who
bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the
floor once or several times.

So why does it matter if he's actually touching the ball when he steps on the division line?

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 02:46pm

Player Control ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032820)
A player who is dribbling has player control. If he steps on the division line, it's a backcourt violation. He stepped into the back court while in possession of the ball. It is irrelevant if he does so while actually batting the ball or in between bats. PC equals touching the ball whether there is contact or not with the ball.

Agree with your definition of player control. Agree that this is a backcourt violation. Fuzzy on the irrelevant part. Touching seems to be relevant, not necessarily player control, to the backcourt rule.

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.

No mention of player control in the rule (other then needing player control to establish team control).

4-4-1 seems to be say that if either the ball or the player touches backcourt it's the same as if both touched the backcourt.

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.

I'm still not certain, and I'm still looking for relevant citations.

Maybe 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) is the correct citation?

BillyMac Wed May 15, 2019 02:48pm

Touching ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1032821)
So why does it matter if he's actually touching the ball when he steps on the division line?

Because player control doesn't appear to be part of the backcourt rule.

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

That's the way I call it every time, but it's not the rule.

We need to throw in 4-4-1, or 9-3-1-Note, or purpose and intent, or something else I'm missing, to complete the rule interpretation.

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 02:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1032824)
Because player control doesn't appear to be part of the backcourt rule.

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)

How is that any different than stepping on the division line while dribbling the ball in the front court.

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

Raymond Wed May 15, 2019 02:55pm

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 or how 9-9-1 doesn't apply.

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).

chapmaja Sat May 25, 2019 04:36pm

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 Sat May 25, 2019 05:46pm

Ejection Report ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1033001)
… 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)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 1033005)
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 Sun May 26, 2019 03:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 1033005)
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 Sun May 26, 2019 03:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1033007)
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 Sun May 26, 2019 08:17am

Touch Me In The Morning (Diana Ross, 1973) ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1033010)
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 Sun May 26, 2019 08:47pm

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 Mon May 27, 2019 09:08am

Intended ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1033029)
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 Mon May 27, 2019 10:31pm

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 Tue May 28, 2019 10:11am

Start Of A Dribble ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1033052)
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.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.C...=0&w=289&h=181


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1