The ball in this video never obtained FC status. It was during a dribble and for the ball to obtain FC status the ball must touch the floor entirely in the FC (along with the feet). The fact that the ball touched the dribbler with the dribbler in the FC is precisely what the 3-points exception is about. The only way for this to have been a violation would be if the dribble had ended prior to the player touching the ball while in the FC. But, none of the things defining the end of a dribble occurred.

Billy, this play, plus the the added the detail of the ball hitting an offensive teammate, are worthy of a formal interpretation. You should send this up the IAABO chain to see what they have to say. Maybe they'll pass it along to the NFHS.

Forgotten Origin ...
 

This thread originally started as an IAABO Make The Call Video. When they publish the Play Commentary and Correct Answer, I'll post it on the Forum as soon as possible (but it won't include the offensive teammate twist).

Interpretation ...
 

Every single interpretation, even those attributed to the NFHS, on the Forum is a form of an opinion. To interpret means to conceive in the light of individual belief according to one's own understanding.

What I have done in this thread is to come up with an interpretation based on multiple factual rule references, and have cited the specific rule references, step by step, for every single aspect of my interpretation.

JRutledge has simply given his interpretation (opinion) based on only two articles of a ball location rule (posted by me) that are relevant for "almost" all situations, but not relevant due to a third article exception regarding this specific dribble across the division line situation, an article that JRutledge chooses to completely ignore as if it didn't exist, a rule article that is the crux of this specific situation.

You need to add that twist and send it up the chain.

I have only given my opinion. I would like clarification (well not really, these things do not keep me up at night) for this hole in the rule. Because if I dribble off my foot and I am in the FC, then I do not know how that is different than me dribbling the ball in the FC. Or if I have an interrupted dribble that touches someone in the FC and then goes to the BC, do not understand why we ignore that because the dribble did not end? Again the issue is not about the dribble stopping or not stopping, it is that the player and ball classifications for where you are on the court would not apply.

I also have not ignored anything, the situations you keep referencing do not apply to what I am are talking about. You add stuff and stick on things that are not the issue. Never once said a dribble ended on this play. Not one time. And until you ask your people what should be done, it is not much help. Honestly not that big of a deal to me. I am going to rule based on what I see.

Peace

I definitely do not think the intent of the rule is to allow a dribble to bounce off a Team A player in the FC and a Team A player to be the first to touch after the ball touches the BC.

Dribbler ...
 

Because as a "dribbler", as defined by rule, he has the "right", also defined by rule, to legally retreat into the backcourt until the ball itself actually touches the frontcourt.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

Agree.

Unfortunately, the rules involving ball location, dribble, and backcourt, as written, may conflict with the probable purpose and intent of the backcourt rule.

All we have to work with is the existing rule language, and as we all know, all the multiple and various exceptions to the backcourt rule can be challenging, either on a written exam, or especially in a real game in real time.

Too bad we couldn't just officiate with the backcourt purpose and intent. Once the ball (let's not include players) gets across the division line (let's call it a plane situation), the court just shrank to half size, with the back out of bounds line being the division line.

Now that would be nice, but unfortunately, not realistic.

If you touched a person in the FC with the ball and it never touched only the floor, then that changes the intent of the rule. And you have yet to show a play that gives that very specific scenario. That is why I mentioned the NCAA BC example that used language about a deflection by the defense only in the FC. Then when it was brought to their attention that a situation happened in the BC, then we got a ruling to suggest that they did not consider a BC deflection, they put something out to clarify the intent. You are taking only one part of the rule and not the fact the ball touches a player in the FC. Yes it is a dribble, but nothing I have read that says a dribble must only hit the floor or else. The definition of a dribble does not say that the ball must hit the floor, it is an attempt to push the ball to the floor. If something gets in the way of that like bouncing off your leg or foot, that does not change all other rules on where the ball is potentially located.

Again, ask your IAABO people and see what they say. But stop telling me what I have to believe on something that has never been mentioned even the the 20-year interpretation you referenced. They have changed some interpretations a few times for BC violations and you use something that does not consider those changes. Funny, but again ask your people.

Peace

It is most definitely realistic. You update the rules after encountering possibilities not previously considered. Like I said, NCAA Men's is very good at that. They have issued interpretations in the middle of the season to correct situations they didn't account for.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Dribble Bouncing Off Leg ...
 

Thank you for confirming my point that the dribble ever ended.

Be patient, their Make The Call Video interpretation will be published shortly.

Not sure why JRutledge is in a hurry to get an IAABO interpretation, it's worthless to him, he doesn't work for IAABO. In fact, he sometimes doesn't fully accept NFHS citations because he doesn't work for the NFHS. We can only be sure that he will fully accept Illinois and/or Indiana interpretations, many of which may be his own interpretations as a highly respected trainer.

Great, but that was never an issue or what I was discussing. But we know when people discuss other things you discuss things that were never in the conversation. It is Wednesday.

Peace

Leaving On A Jet Plane (Peter, Paul And Mary, 1967) …
 

It will never fly.

What it we add that throwins in the frontcourt (not at division line or beyond) may not be legally passed (the court shrank to half size) into the backcourt?

That will screw up all the second grade recreation leagues where the is no defensive pressure allowed in the backcourt and that's where parent coaches teach their inbounders to pass the ball.

.

Why pass it up the chain?? I know Battista is on your speed dial.