Fun With The Division Line ...
 

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...cZxkZat11C.mp4

Go at it.

Not sure what we're supposed to go at.

Standard misapplication of the back court rule. No reason for the Center official to interject himself into the play b/c the Trail official was right there to see all the action.

Two Feet And The Ball ???
 

Then I'm wrong because I believe that the call is correct, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Black 33 had already picked up her dribble when she made the pass to Black 24 who was in the backcourt.

Because she wasn't dribbling, the "two feet and the ball" rule doesn't apply, it only applies to a player dribbling the ball across the division line.

Before she made the pass to the backcourt, Black 33 had her right foot fully in the frontcourt and her left foot on the division line, with part of her shoe in the backcourt and part of her shoe in the frontcourt.

I believe that her position and location gave her player control and her team team control in the frontcourt.

But, or course, I could be wrong in my interpretation.

Maybe it's the pivot foot that should matter here?

You are incorrect. Player location is determined by where a player is touching the court per Rule 4. It states that if any part of a player is touching the backcourt, which includes the division line, then the player is located in the backcourt.

Backcourt Location ...
 

Thanks Nevadaref.

4-35-2: When a player is touching the backcourt, out of bounds or the three-point line, the player is located in backcourt, out of bounds or inside the three-point line, respectively.

So non-dribbling Black 33, holding the ball with her right foot fully in the frontcourt and her left foot on the division line, with part of her shoe in the backcourt and part of her shoe in the frontcourt, still had backcourt status.

If her left foot had been her pivot foot, she could have legally pivoted so that both feet were in the backcourt.

It's not a "three points" dribbling across the division line situation. It's not a pivot foot situation. It's a player location situation.

Raymond is correct, the Center should have let the Trail (not) make the call.

Billy, you've been reffing way too long and been involved in way too many rules discussions not to know frontcourt/backcourt status.

I find it extremely hard to believe you didn't know the proper ruling for this play. What you're saying is that for your entire career you thought that a player holding a ball while straddling a division line had frontcourt status.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Screwed Up ...
 

I was concentrating on whether, or not, this was a "three points" dribbling across the division line situation, and after determining that it was not, let my guard down, didn't followup and think it through, and screwed up.

When observing a player straddling the division line, I always think about the order that the feet hit the floor, and the pivot foot, which didn't really apply here.

Hey, at least I was smart enough to know what I didn't know, that I wasn't 100% sure of my answer, and to bring my question to the Forum for continuing education.

Plus there were too many confusing lines on the court. And there was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault, I swear to God!

All these years you thought a stationary, grounded player who caught a pass or throw-in while straddling the division line had FC status?

Blame The Locusts ...
 

No. The ended dribble distracted me and screwed me up in this situation.

I should have viewed the situation as a player who caught a pass while straddling the division line, which, in this simplified version would have led me to the correct interpretation, that is, to allow the player to legally pass the ball wherever she wanted to.

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=204&h=162

I just noticed the issue. This court is confusing. The division line is the white line and this was an incorrect call all the way. Sorry if that was stated, I just tried to see why there was a disagreement.

Peace

Does the player end the dribble with the RF, in the FC being the pivot foot? And is the LF then lifted and moved to the division line? If so, that's a violation as soon as the LF lands again in the BC.

BillyMac mentioned this as well and I think this is the crux of the matter. C (who I agree should have deferred to the T first) was probably focused on the blue volleyball centerline instead of the white division line. The volleyball court is usually centered with the basketball court, though not always, and when it’s not, this can happen.

It happened to me two years ago. I recognized my mistake immediately, declared an IW, and we carried on. Nobody minded. I suspect it wasn’t the first time the home coach saw that happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have seen a few courts like this, you just have to notice it so that you do not get caught up. There is a could in Indiana that has two lines surrounding the division line and people make a big deal about how people mess up knowing which is the division line. Not sure why people that design these courts feel the need to put lines in certain places, but they do.

This was clearly not a BC violation and was likely caused by the court configuration. But change it and move on.

Peace

Parallel Lines ...
 

We have a high school court here in my little corner of Connecticut that has black lines parallel and very close to (inches) both dark blue endlines (with little room behind said endlines). I've worked there dozens of times, always pregame it with my partners, yet we still occasionally have inadvertent whistles.

Pivot Foot ...
 

Not sure if that left foot is lifted because White #23 and White #32 get in the way.

Maybe this is a pivot foot situation.

Call what you see. Don't call what you don't see.