Fun With The Division Line ...

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would suggest if this is an issue, ask the people in your organization what they think.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I said you need to ask the people you work for and see what they think.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, bring me a ruling from IAABO ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, ask your IAABO people and see what they say.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... ask them what to do in this situation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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%.

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 off themselves or a teammate's foot/leg/hip that is in the frontcourt ... was about a dribble ending that had nothing to do with the discussion.

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".

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... the ball deflects off his hand and bounces once again in the backcourt.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... deliberately pushes the ball to the floor, which constitutes the start of a dribble. This is an important factor in this play ... behind-the-back dribble ... dribbles the ball behind him ... continue the dribble. ... 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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 dribble in the BC ... violation. But, if the ball only contacted the dribbler, the 3-points rule is still in effect ...

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

.. 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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Of course, we know that is not the intent ... the dribble is implied to end when the ball is passed to another player.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... will ask those in position in due time ... misrepresent the conversation ...

I would welcome an opportunity to help set some parameters, so as to not misrepresent the conversation.

Ball simply mishandled, only touching his hand?

Ball defected off the leg of the dribbler?

I personally don't have an overwhelming interest the ball deflecting off a teammate (not an opponent), but Raymond may be interested in such.

More importantly, so as to not misrepresent the conversation.

Interpretations based the existing written rules alone?

Interpretations based on purpose and intent?

So as to not misrepresent the conversation, be sure to mention that at no time did the ball ever touch the floor in the frontcourt.