IAABO Fall Seminar ...
 

I'll see the IAABO "Gang of Four" at the IAABO Fall Seminar here in Connecticut in early October. They've already asked me to bring up a few situations (orphan annual interpretations and orphan points of emphasis; and NFHS shot clock guidelines) at the seminar. I don't want to wear out my welcome.

I'm not part of any of the DMV cliques. ;)

Plus, I'm looking for an official interpretation that will lead to an examination to the wording of the applicable rules. I know by the letter of the rules it is not a BC violation, but there is no way in the world the NFHS intends for it to be allowable to have an attempted dribble bounce off a teammate in the FC and be retrieved in the BC.

The Devil Is In The Details ...
 

Raymond and I agree 100%. While JRutledge may not agree with the "letter of the rules" aspect, I believe that he would agree with us, based on purpose and intent, that this is probably a backcourt violation.

In the spirit of fellowship, it would be nice to get a sense of consensus and closure to this thread (at least until IAABO publishes their play commentary, when a fan will be available to be hit by something).

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.1...=0&w=205&h=166

Stop freakin telling me what the freak I believe. You do not know what I believe. You do not think like I do because you are giving a definition that is not at issue. You clearly do not understand the logic and clearly do not know how to have a conversation about things that are not covered. Be a man, call the people you know, and ask them what to do in this situation. I did that and I was not even on the level of an official to ask the National Coordinator and the National Rules Editor and Interpreter to clarify something for me. I did not take a position that there was an original intent in the rules. If I did then I would have been going all over the internet and said the rule clearly said what happens in the FC and stop there. No, I realized there was a likely hole or something they did not consider and contacted those individuals to find out if my original position was correct or did they need to update the wording. You can do the same. Stop being a coward about it. You claim to reference these people you talk to, you are telling me you cannot email them with a basic question and suggest that we had some disagreement?

No wonder you have never worked a playoff game in your area. You have no heart to simply ask the people that would have information a question. I have no problem picking up the phone or the computer to ask the people to clarify something that is not clear or debatable. I am also willing to report what I was told and to say my position fit or did not fit what was discussed.

Peace

Seeing Is Believing ...
 

But I do believe what JRutledge posts, which should be similar to what JRutledge believes.

So I was wrong? JRutledge actually doesn't agree with Raymond and me that this is probably a backcourt violation?

And proving that JRutledge doesn't fully read, or fully understand, Forum posts, or has a very poor memory:

This was posted a week ago as a direct reply to a post by JRutledge. Guess JRutledge doesn't read, understand, or remember (seven days, after all, is a very long time to remember something) replies to his posts, especially replies to JRutledge posts that may be exposed as embarrassingly inaccurate, or wrong.

Impatient ...
 

Sixteen years on the Forum, and I've never known JRutledge to be impatient.

Simplify ...
 

I am so pleased that Raymond broached the idea of purpose and intent, it definitely adds a new, and welcome wrinkle to the thread.

I wish that he, or another Forum member, had broached this subject earlier, it would have saved me a lot of typing.

Let's simplify:

Situation A: A1, while moving out of the backcourt into the frontcourt, is dribbling multiple times nearly parallel to the division line, with both of his feet in the frontcourt, and the ball bouncing on the floor in the backcourt. The bouncing ball never touches the floor in the frontcourt, only touching the floor in the backcourt.

Situation B: A1, while moving out of the backcourt into the frontcourt, is dribbling multiple times nearly parallel to the division line, with both of his feet in the frontcourt, and the ball bouncing on the floor in the backcourt. One of his dribbles touches his leg, but never touches the floor in the frontcourt, bouncing on the floor in the backcourt after touching his leg.

Do the rules regarding ball location and backcourt, as written, match the purpose and intent of the backcourt rule? Or is there a conflict?

I opine no to the former (written rules don't match purpose and intent), and yes to the later (written rules do conflict with purpose and intent).

9-9: A player must 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. While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player must not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.

4-4: 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. A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location. 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.

Right, or wrong, I believe that I would call Situation B a backcourt violation (probably pointing to my leg after my backcourt signal) in a real game, in real time, and nobody, players, coaches, fans, and partner, would blink an eye, nor would I question myself.

Alternatively, right, or wrong, I also believe that if I no-called Situation B as a legal play in real game, in real time, everybody, players, coaches, and fans, would all be giving me a "Bronx cheer", and would all be telling me not to quit my day job.

Where's Fido ???
 

In fact, if I no-called Situation A as a legal play in real game, in real time, it would raise a few eyebrows throughout the gym, with a few questioning the whereabouts of my seeing eye dog. Maybe no downright booing, but we can all imagine a negative murmur coming from the cheap seats.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Not sure why, but JRutledge has been anxiously awaiting with bated breath, so read the disclaimer (click accept), get the fan ready to be hit by something, and check out the "official" IAABO interpretation.

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

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

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is a legal play.

Orange #40 receives a pass, deliberately pushes the ball to the floor, which constitutes the start of a dribble. (4-15-1) This is an important factor in this play.

As Orange #40 crosses the division line, he attempts a behind-the-back dribble with both feet now touching the frontcourt. As he dribbles the ball behind him, the ball deflects off his hand and bounces once again in the backcourt.

Orange #40 (with frontcourt status) now reaches back into the backcourt and touches the ball (with backcourt status) to continue the dribble. At this point in the play, A player with frontcourt status is now touching a ball with backcourt status. For many of the 37% of respondents who viewed this play as a violation, this was one of the primary reasons.

There is a lot of merit to this logic as the status of the ball is often predicated on the location of the player who is touching or was in last contact with the ball. (4-4-4) However, 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. (4-4-6)

In this clip, at no time did the ball touch the frontcourt. Therefore the ball remains in backcourt status, and the 10-second backcourt count should continue.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a legal play 64% (including me). This is a backcourt violation 36%.

You still did not ask the question of the scenario that was being discussed. Also, the issue was not this particular play, but the possibility of a dribbler bouncing the ball of themselves or a teammate's foot/leg/hip that is in the frontcourt.

Not worried about this at all. I do not really care because I know what I believe and will ask those in position in due time. But you on the other hand seem to take a strong position that was about a dribble ending that had nothing to do with the discussion. So since you are convinced you are right, why not ask those that are in the position immediately? Then you could lie, misrepresent the conversation we are having and then tell everyone what someone thinks that you do not know. ;)

Peace

Video Interpretation ...
 

The scenario being discussed in this thread was the video. Almost the entire thread was about the video. The IAABO interpretation was about the video.

The IAABO interpretation did take into account the "dribbler bouncing the ball off themselves".

The added twist about the ball bouncing off a teammate's foot was Raymond's situation, not specifically in the video, so debate that situation with Raymond. While I did offer an opinion (interpretation) on Raymond's situation, it wasn't a strong opinion, just a guess, and certainly not a hill I was ready to die on.

The dribble was always important in this video. It states as such the IAABO interpretation. The fact that it was a dribble, and not anything else, defines the location of the ball in regard to frontcourt/backcourt. The crux of this interpretation is the start of a dribble (it must be a dribble) and the fact that the dribble never ends.

When the ball touches an opponent and the dribbler loses control, the dribble, by definition ends.

When the ball is batted, thrown, rolled, to a teammate, the action is considered a pass. We've considered that to be the case forever when it comes to whether we consider an act a dribble vs. a pass with respect to the illegal dribble and travel rules.

Thus, when the interrupted dribble is touched by a teammate, that seems like it would be a pass to me and should be treated as such.

So, if he ball hit a teammate who was fully in the FC and returned to the dribbler in the BC...violation. But, if the ball only contacted the dribbler, the 3-points rule is still in effect.

If you take the definition of the rule defining the end of a dribble literally, a dribble that is passed off the bounce to a teammate never ends until the ball subsequently becomes dead or is passed back to the original dribbler who then catches the ball. Taken literally, the rule says you could conceivably have all 5 offensive players with a live dribble by the literal wording of the rules. Of course, we know that is not the intent...the dribble is implied to end when the ball is passed to another player.

Dribble Or Bounce Pass ...
 

Great thoughtful post Camron Rust.

Not a big deal, and it may not apply to Camron Rust's situation, but in regard to the start of a dribble, or a pass, especially a bounce pass, in a real game, in real time, I always wait for the result of the act to differentiate a bounce pass from a dribble, while the rules as written imply that we can adjudicate by simply reading the ball handler's mind.

For example, a ball handler (dribbler) has ended his dribble, and closely defended, and in a panic situation, he throws the ball to the floor (possibly while airborne). By written rule, we can immediately call an illegal (double) dribble violation (not even waiting for the ball to touch the floor) if we believe the act to be the start of a dribble (dribble begins by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor). In a real game, in real time, I prefer to wait for the result of the ball being thrown to the floor. The act could have been the start of a legal bounce pass. Depends on who touches the ball next.

Quandary ...
 

.. and we would allow said player to start a new dribble.

9-5-3: A player must not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless it is after he/she has lost control because of: A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player.

But did his first dribble actually end?

4-14: The dribble ends when: The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to lose control. The ball becomes dead.

For there to be a "second dribble" the "first dribble" must end.

If the dribble didn't end, he could "continue" to dribble without using (or needing) the benefit of the 9-5-3 exception (touched by, another player).

True Purpose And True Intent ...
 

Agree that purpose and intent is always important, it's at the beginning of the rulebook for an important reason, but sometimes the purpose and intent conflicts with the rules as written, and sometimes it's difficult to ascertain the NFHS's true purpose and true intent.

Let's go back to the original video and also go back to ancient times when the NFHS (or some other ancient rules making body) decided to invent the ten second rule, and the backcourt rule.

They probably said, "If we allow teams to use the entire length of the court to dribble and pass the ball for an unlimited amount of time, this will become a very boring game, so let's come up with two simple rules to make the game more interesting".

And thus we got the purpose and intent of the ten second rule, and the backcourt rule.

But then they had to come up with lots and lots of exceptions to the these otherwise, two very simple rules, and that's when the sausage making of writing rule language left the original backcourt purpose and intent a little "fuzzy".

That being said, I have no problem with anybody using backcourt purpose and intent to view the video and decide that the situation was an illegal backcourt violation, but only by purpose and intent, not by the existing written rules.