If it goes off his leg and the his leg is clearly in the FC, I would think the three points is not a hard-fast rule in that specific situation. That being said I would agree that this is likely not very clear as to the issue of a dribble normally coming from the BC to the FC. I think this would be similar to the ball touching your leg and going out of bounds. Yes it is an interrupted dribble, but the ball had FC status while the player is touching the ball.

Peace

Off Leg ...
 

Dribble off hand? Ball is still considered to be in the backcourt (three points). Legal. Play on.

Deflection off leg? Ball is considered to be in the frontcourt (like if the ball had been passed to him and he touched but muffed catching the pass while he was standing in the frontcourt), leading to a backcourt violation?

Not agreeing, but not disagreeing either.

Maybe one of those fuzzy, gray areas that the NFHS hasn't considered in the past zillion years?

Is an interrupted dribble a dribble?

Has the dribble ended?

4-15-4: The dribble ends when:
a. The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.
b. The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.
c. The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
d. The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control.
e. The ball becomes dead.

None of these five things happened.

I think that this interrupted dribble is still a dribble (it hasn't ended) and that the "three points" rule is still in effect and applies.

Just my opinion, not cast in bronze.

The three-points rule states that the ball must touch the court, not a player, in the frontcourt in order to gain frontcourt status.

Legal Play ...
 

Agree. After looking at the definition of ending a dribble, I'm convinced that this was a legal play, and not a backcourt violation.

Nice thread.

I believe this is a legal play. The ball was being dribbled from the backcourt and to obtain frontcourt status the ball itself must touch the floor in the frontcourt (along with the feet). The ball never bounced on the floor, thus, the ball was never in the frontcourt. As such, there can't be a backcourt violation.

All I am saying is if the player "dribbled" off his leg that is touching the FC (meaning he is in the FC by rule) then the ball goes into the BC, that is a violation. That is what I believe I see in this play, but we are kind of screened from a clear view of the player and the ball at the time there appears to be some kind of deflection that makes the ball go into the BC. But if the dribble hit the floor, then they must have all 3 points to be in the FC first, which I am not sure happened here.

Interesting play and why we review these plays in the first place.

Peace

Three Point Rule ...
 

True, the player is in the frontcourt, but the "three point rule" says that during a dribble, the ball must be dribbled onto the frontcourt to gain frontcourt status, and it never was.

Maybe, not clear how the ball goes "backward". That being said, a "self deflection", while an interrupted dribble, is still part of a dribble (by rule definition the dribble never ended) and an interrupted dribble has the exact same relevance as a "regular" dribble to the "three point rule", so the ball never touched the frontcourt, thus a legal play.

Agree. All three points never got into the frontcourt. Legal play.

Yes but a dribble means hitting the floor. If the dribble is interrupted and hits a player in the FC that has FC status (you do have FC status if you touch the ball with all feet and body parts in the FC), then the issue of dribbling would not apply IMO. Not different than a fumble where you are touching the FC and you are touching the ball that is not touching the floor. So everything is in the FC at that moment and then if you knock the ball into the BC, then the BC rules might apply on the last touch, first touch.

Peace

Definition Of Ending A Dribble ...
 

Yes it does, but that doesn't preclude the deflection off of the dribbler's body (if that really happened) from being a part of a dibble.

Like JRutledge, for a while I also believed that the interrupted dribble hitting the player (if that really happened) impacted the "three points rule", changing a dribble into something else, maybe a fumble.

That was until I looked up the definition of ending a dribble.

None of these five things happened. Yes, the dribbler lost some control (if a defection really happened) but it wasn't due to the ball being touched by an opponent.

JRutledge's fumble analogy, while correct in its own right, doesn't apply here because it's a dribble, covered by 4-15-4, not a fumble.

A dribble continues being a dribble, even if interrupted by a deflection off of the dribbler's body. In this video, the dribble remains "intact" (it never ended) right up until the official sounds her whistle (dead ball).

Since the dribble remains "intact", the "three points rule" is in full force and applies.

4-4-6: During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt.

By 4-4-6, the ball must be dribbled (including an interrupted dribble, if that really happened) onto the frontcourt to gain frontcourt status, and it never was dribbled into the frontcourt, thus a legal play.

For the record, I am not making a statement about the end of a dribble. I am saying the contact with the ball is with a player in the frontcourt and then goes into the backcourt. I was never stating that the dribble ended per se. Just stating that the ball reached frontcourt status and then goes into the backcourt. Call it a fumble if it makes you feel better, but this to me is not that complicated, and is this the intent of the rule to worry about if a dribble ended. Some situations are not covered ball the rule or every interpretation. Kind of like the backcourt situation I saw in the West Virginia-Gonzaga rule and Art Hyland clearly told me in an email that the rules did not cover the situation specifically seen in that game. They had to add an interpretation to deal with the intent of the rule. I think this is one of these situations where there might be a hole in how you define the issue. But again my contention has nothing to do with the end of a dribble.

Peace

4-4-6 In Full Force ...
 

Only the end of the dribble would exclude 4-4-6 from being in full force in this situation. As long as Red #40 is dribbling (he continued to dribble, by definition, throughout the entire play), he must dribble onto the frontcourt to gain frontcourt status, and since the ball was never was dribbled onto the frontcourt, this is a legal play.

Like JRutledge, I once thought that this was NFHS "oversight", but once I came across the definition of ending a dribble, it was confirmed for me that an interrupted dribble was, indeed, part of a dribble, and thus this was a legal 4-4-6 play.

Well again the issue is not for me whether the dribble ended. This is not an issue of losing a dribble. This is an issue of the status of the ball. If you dribble off your leg while in the FC, the ball has reached FC status. The rest is about last and first touches in the FC as it relates to a BC violation.

And we are not going to solve this by the discussion here. So you can stop repeating the dribble rule because that is not why I think this is a violation.

Peace

Ball Location ...
 

Not according to this specific (backcourt to frontcourt dribble) situation and Article 6 of the Ball Location Rule.

Let's turn away from a dribble definition (I believe that we can now all agree that the dribble, even if interrupted, never ended) and look at "status" rules.

JRutledge himself correctly states that "this is an issue of the status of the ball", so let's take at close look at "status" rules.

JRutledge can point to Article 2 and Article 4 to make his interpretation, but if, and only if, if he totally and completely ignores Article 6.

Rule 4 - Section 4 - Ball Location
ART. 2 A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.
ART. 4 A ball which touches a player … is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location.
ART. 6 During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt.

I believe that the NFHS views Article 6 as a "three points dribble exception" to Article 2 and Article 4, that certainly can't be ignored, and certainly should not be ignored.

Put simply:

And, of course, we can't be sure if the ball actually did deflect off the player's leg, body, etc., so that component is purely academic.

If one is not sure, don't call it.

Assume No Deflection ...
 

So, for sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that there was no deflection (interrupted dribble), that Red #40 simply dribbled the ball "backward".

Wouldn't JRutledge argue that this was also a "status/ball location" issue and that by Red #40 touching the ball while he was standing with both feet in the frontcourt that the ball had gained frontcourt status, also pointing to Article 2 and Article 4 as proof?

I don't see how a backcourt to frontcourt "deflection/fumble/interrupted" dribble in the frontcourt is any different than a "regular" garden variety backcourt to frontcourt dribble in the frontcourt. In both cases Article 6 (three points dribble exception) applies.

Annual Interpretation ...
 

Situations are slightly unclear, but the ruling is as clear as a bell:

2000-01 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 1: Al is straddling the division line after catching and possessing a pass from A2. Al then fumbles the ball …

SITUATION 2: Same situation as above, except Al begins a dribble immediately upon fumbling the ball and retreats to his/her backcourt to avoid a defender.

RULING: During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt. Therefore, the play is legal and play continues. COMMENT: The provision of, “both feet and the ball being in the frontcourt” to determine frontcourt status, is only relevant during a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt.

"Only relevant during a dribble" is why knowing the definition of a dribble, and knowing when the dribble ends, is so important to this video interpretation (and sealed the deal for me).

Yes it does. If the dribble had ended (it never ended), the 4-4-6 three point dribble exception wouldn't apply.