Fun With The Division Line ...

[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.

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... there appears to be some kind of deflection that makes the ball go into the BC.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

True, the player is in the frontcourt, but the "three point rule" says that during a dribble, the ball must be dribbled into 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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes but a dribble means hitting the floor ...

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For the record, I am not making a statement about the end of a dribble ... has nothing to do with the end of a dribble.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think this is one of these situations where there might be a hole in how you define the issue.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For the purpose of this rule, is an interrupted dribble still a dribble?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Good question. Time for you and Mark to dig deep into some research.