Fun With The Division Line ...

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...72yVu05A%3D%3D

Was this correctly ruled a backcourt violation? Did the dribbler ever establish frontcourt status?

Two choices: This is a backcourt violation. This is a legal play.

My comment: This is a legal play. The dribbler never established frontcourt status. 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.

[Raymond]

My major concern is that the official blew her whistle before the offensive player touched the ball again after the ball touched the back court.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

It looks like a violation. Looks like the ball got across and knocked backwards.

It does seem like the official was a little quick on the whistle. Did not let the play completely process.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Looks like the ball got across and knocked backwards.

Closest I see the dribbled ball to getting across the division line is the ball hitting the division line, which is part of the backcourt, and remember, this is not a plane situation, but a location situation.

Granted, as an IAABO member I can view this at 25% speed, which I had to use to make my call here.

Could there have been an interrupted dribble here, and would that affect the adjudication?

[JRutledge]

Looks to me there is one dribble in the frontcourt and then goes to the backcourt. There is a player kind of in front of the ball handler so where that ball landed is suspect. The official has a much cleaner, open look than we do. It looks like a BC violation to me.

And yes I slowed it down. I have other ways to watch this than just on your link.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Looks to me there is one dribble in the frontcourt and then goes to the backcourt. There is a player kind of in front of the ball handler so where that ball landed is suspect. The official has a much cleaner, open look than we do. It looks like a BC violation to me.

And yes I slowed it down. I have other ways to watch this than just on your link.

Peace

I magnified the video and still couldn't see it clearly from our view. It's possible the ball hit A1's backside after he was completely in the front court, then went into the back court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Looks to me there is one dribble in the frontcourt and then goes to the backcourt. There is a player kind of in front of the ball handler so where that ball landed is suspect.

Agree that the ball landing spot could be considered suspect. I thought I got a pretty good look, but maybe not.

[Raymond]

I don't do the teasing thing, I leave that to you.

Based on how the rules are written in regards to three points in the front court and a dribble ending, the argument can be made it is not a violation.

An argument can also be made that's not the spirit and intent of the rules.

I have a pretty good track record in deciphering what the NCAA Men's rule committee wants in regards to spirit and intent. Can anybody ever really know what the NFHS wants?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I don't do the teasing thing, I leave that to you.

Based on how the rules are written in regards to three points in the front court and a dribble ending, the argument can be made it is not a violation.

An argument can also be made that's not the spirit and intent of the rules.

I have a pretty good track record in deciphering what the NCAA Men's rule committee wants in regards to spirit and intent. Can anybody ever really know what the NFHS wants?

Because the NF will have a rule and never discuss the situation at all. So we really do not know for sure and we are guessing.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So we really do not know for sure and we are guessing.

There's a difference between guessing and educated guessing.

We use the language available to us in the rulebook, casebook, Points of Emphasis, and annual interpretations to make educated guesses, stating relevant citations along the way, to hopefully come up with correct interpretations regarding "odd" situations not specifically covered by the available language.

That's the science component; research, logic, and rational thought leading to a hypothesis. That's right in my wheelhouse.

The art component is to use sometimes limited available language to "fill in the blanks". That's not usually in my wheelhouse, and I will often look for guidance from others.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's a difference between guessing and educated guessing.

We use the language available to us in the rulebook, casebook, Points of Emphasis, and annual interpretations to make educated guesses, stating relevant citations along the way, to hopefully come up with correct interpretations regarding "odd" situations not specifically covered by the available language.

That's the science component; research, logic, and rational thought leading to a hypothesis. That's right in my wheelhouse.

The art component is to use sometimes limited available language to "fill in the blanks". That's not usually in my wheelhouse, and I will often look for guidance from others.

What you did here was not an educated guess, it was an opinion. Because this play is not covered so there are things in the rulebook that I am well aware of that are never considered because it does not fit a specific definition. YOu are stuck on a definition that may or may not apply to what I was saying. Because the ending of a dribble does not have anything to do with what would be ruled a BC violation if the action is a player touching the ball completely in the FC. I am not trying to even say I am right here, just pointing out that this is a hole in the rule and might not fit the intention the rule was created. So you can research this all you like, but unless you come up with a specific play or something that adds to the hole in the interpretation, we are just giving opinions at this point. And I have learned that I can have an opinion about rules and have organizations say how they want you to rule on the situation. That is why I said you need to ask the people you work for and see what they think. I will do the same and we can even share that information, but it also does not mean we will be spot on either way. It might mean that there are just different takes on this play. And the way the NF does things, it is really up to your state to give a ruling.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What you did here was not an educated guess, it was an opinion.

A thoroughly researched, educated, logical, and rational opinion, with a few rule citations, and an interpretation citation, and like science, open to peer review (as is everything here on the Forum), with more agreement than disagreement.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Based on how the rules are written in regards to three points in the front court and a dribble ending, the argument can be made it is not a violation.

Let's see some research and citations from JRutledge, and maybe a few agreements with him from Forum members.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because the ending of a dribble does not have anything to do with what would be ruled a BC violation if the action is a player touching the ball completely in the FC.

JRutledge keeps saying this but he's 100% dead wrong.

It's the dribble, and only the dribble, and nothing but the dribble, and a lack of an ending to said dribble, that makes 4-4-6 exception relevant. No dribble, and we're left with the other ball location rules (Article 4 and Article 6), with a much different outcome (interpretation).

If A1 in the backcourt passes the ball to A2, standing with both feet in the frontcourt, and if A2 fumbles the catch, and the ball bounces into the backcourt, then Article 4 and Article 6, and the last to touch first to touch rule would all apply.

But it's not a pass, it's a dribble, a dribble that never ends.

These rules and interpretation are very clear and are quite easy to understand.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

2000-01 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations: 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Can anybody ever really know what the NFHS wants?

Does the NFHS ever really know what the NFHS wants?