Fun With The Division Line ...

[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.

[Raymond]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

It is most definitely realistic.

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.

[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 Raymond

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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).

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You do not know what I believe ... No wonder you have never worked a playoff game in your area.

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:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... having this conversation with an official that has never gone to camp, does not train officials and has never worked post season in their jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Been to dozens of camps, local, state, and regional, all high school, no college. Never a trainer at a camp. Been on three training committees, once for rules, twice for mechanics, currently serving on the mechanics training committee. Lots of post season games, conference (league) post season games, including one conference championship final. No state tournament games.

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.

[BillyMac]

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 ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... call the people you know, and ask them what to do in this situation.

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

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. An argument can also be made that's not the spirit and intent of the rules.

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.