Fun With The Division Line ...

[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

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Raymond]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... bring me a ruling from IAABO then talk to me about what the ruling should be.

Originally Posted by Raymond

You should send this up the IAABO chain to see what they have to say.

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).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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).

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

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

Why pass it up the chain?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

.

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you are giving just an opinion.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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 ...

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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