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.

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.

No Backcourt Violation Until A Touch ...
 

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

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.


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

Peace

fify

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

Follow The Bouncing Ball ...
 

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

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

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

Situation 1, No Backcourt ...
 

Totally disagree with sdoebler's interpretation of Situation 1:

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

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

Never Assume ...
 

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.

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

Hyperbole ...
 

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?

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

Backcourt ...
 

Why didn't you say so earlier?

Backcourt violations.

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

Advanced Question ...
 

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?

The poster did when he indicated "dribbling";)

Does Anyone Refer To Grasshopper Any More ???
 

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

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

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?

The Untouchables ...
 

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.

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.

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

No Ifs, Ands, Or Buts ...
 

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?

Everyone, other than you knew what he meant

Anything to keep your word and post count up.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Horton Hears A Who ...
 

Everyone? Then why did bob jenkins agree with me?

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, Valid point, or not?

Talk Amongst Yourselves (Coffee Talk) ...
 

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

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

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

Peace

I'm A Cheap Bastard ...
 

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.

I Miss Mark Padgett ...
 

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

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.

Valid Point ...
 

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

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


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.

"Or", Not "And" ...
 

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).

Interrupted Dribble ...
 

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.

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

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

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Not Sure ...
 

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.

Momentarily Get Away From Him ...
 

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.

Holding Or Dribbling ...
 

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.

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.

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

Player Control ...
 

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?

Touching ...
 

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.

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.

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.

Touch ...
 

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.

Holding, Dribbling ...
 

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.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

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.

Player Control ...
 

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?

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.

Boundary ...
 

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?

Definitions ...
 

I believe that all my definitions have been NFHS definitions.

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.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Ejection Report ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Intended ...
 

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.

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?

Start Of A Dribble ...
 

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