Fun With The Division Line ...

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

It's the dribble, and only 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.

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 apply.

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

Again I was not asking for your approval.

If the ball is touching a person that is in the FC, then they are in the FC in all situations. The only element of this is whether there is a dribble and if that dribble touches the floor or has touched the floor. The ball going off a person changes the status of the ball or there is nothing that says it doesn't in the rules. The rule does not make a distinction between a pass or or a deflection. And an interrupted dribble can be a deflection or a mishandled ball.

So if I have an interrupted dribble and the interrupted dribble hits a teammate that is in the FC in the air and then goes back to the BC, the status of the ball does not change? OK, you go with that one.

So as far as I am concerned you are wrong. So now what?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the ball is touching a person that is in the FC, then they are in the FC in all situations. The only element of this is whether there is a dribble and if that dribble touches the floor or has touched the floor. The ball going off a person changes the status of the ball or there is nothing that says it doesn't in the rules. The rule does not make a distinction between a pass or or a deflection. And an interrupted dribble can be a deflection or a mishandled ball.

"If the ball is touching a person that is in the FC, then they are in the FC in all situations"? True, but only true for the player, not true for a dribbled ball, and for a backcourt violation the ball must have frontcourt status.

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control; the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

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.

"The only element of this is whether there is a dribble and if that dribble touches the floor or has touched the floor. The ball going off a person changes the status of the ball or there is nothing that says it doesn't in the rules"? Not true, the dribbled ball going off a person doesn't change the dribbled status of the ball, because the ball going off a person doesn't end the dribble.

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.

"The rule does not make a distinction between a pass or or a deflection"? Not true. It does make an important distinction between a pass and a deflected dribble One (pass) isn't covered by the 4-4-6 exception, and one (deflected dribble) is covered by the 4-4-6 exception.

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.

"An interrupted dribble can be a deflection or a mishandled ball"? Agree 100% with this, but not sure how it's relevant, other than because we're straight-lined, we can't really see if the ball was self-deflected, or simply mishandled. In any case, neither would end the dribble.

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.

Waiting for real NFHS citations to counter my hypotheses (all that came with citation proof).

I'm especially curious to know when the dribble ended and the 4-4-6 exception was no longer was applicable.

[JRutledge]

Again, bring me a ruling from IAABO then talk to me about what the ruling should be. Until then, you are giving just an opinion.

Peace