Fun With The Division Line ...
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...72yVu05A%3D%3D

Was this correctly ruled a backcourt violation? Did the dribbler ever establish frontcourt status?

Two choices: This is a backcourt violation. This is a legal play.

My comment: This is a legal play. The dribbler never established frontcourt status. 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.

My major concern is that the official blew her whistle before the offensive player touched the ball again after the ball touched the back court.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It looks like a violation. Looks like the ball got across and knocked backwards.

It does seem like the official was a little quick on the whistle. Did not let the play completely process.

Peace

Ball Hits The Division Line ...
 

Closest I see the dribbled ball to getting across the division line is the ball hitting the division line, which is part of the backcourt, and remember, this is not a plane situation, but a location situation.

Granted, as an IAABO member I can view this at 25% speed, which I had to use to make my call here.

Could there have been an interrupted dribble here, and would that affect the adjudication?

Looks to me there is one dribble in the frontcourt and then goes to the backcourt. There is a player kind of in front of the ball handler so where that ball landed is suspect. The official has a much cleaner, open look than we do. It looks like a BC violation to me.

And yes I slowed it down. I have other ways to watch this than just on your link. ;)

Peace

I magnified the video and still couldn't see it clearly from our view. It's possible the ball hit A1's backside after he was completely in the front court, then went into the back court.

Suspect ...
 

Agree that the ball landing spot could be considered suspect. I thought I got a pretty good look, but maybe not.

It looks like to me there is one last bounce in the frontcourt and then the ball goes and hits the line. But again, not clear if that hit the floor or the player's leg.

This is a lesson, see the entire play and know what you called or did not have to call. Don't guess.

Peace

Interrupted Dribble ...
 

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

An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Good question.

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

It does not matter. If the ball reached FC status, that is the first issue. If the ball was last touched by the team in control and goes into the BC, that is the second thing that matters. I could suggest that the ball touched the FC and was last touched by the dribbler and then touched first by the dribbler in the FC. It would not matter if the ball during the interrupted dribble had gained FC status at some point.

Peace

Status ...
 

Agree. Yes it is, and it's determined by the above rule.

Dribbler can get both the left foot and the right foot across the division line (in the frontcourt) and keep dribbling, touching the ball, and bouncing the ball in the backcourt, for ten seconds with no backcourt violation.

Would the ball touching the dribbler on his backside (if it actually happened) be considered part of this dribble, and thus legal; or does the interrupted dribble (if it actually is an interrupted dribble) "cancel" the "three points" rule, giving the interrupted dribbler "full" frontcourt status, and thus, a backcourt violation?

Again ...
 

JRutledge and Raymond brought up some good points in their posts, so I looked at the video again.

I am certain the the ball never touched the frontcourt, and thus never achieved frontcourt status as it was dribbled. The ball only achieved frontcourt status when dribbler Red #40 picked up his dribble with both hands after the official sounded her whistle for the backcourt violation.

Of course, the official in the video didn't have the luxury of second slow motion look.

The only question that I have is how did the ball end up going "backward", did Red #40 dribble it "backward", or did the ball deflect off of Red #40's body and deflect "backward"?

Dribble "backward" is easy, legal, no backcourt violation.

If the ball did deflect off of Red #40's body and deflect "backward" as an interrupted dribble, does that move "cancel" the "three points" rule, giving the interrupted dribbler "full" frontcourt status (like if the ball had been passed to him and he touched but muffed catching the pass while he was standing in the frontcourt), and thus, a backcourt violation after the ball bounced in the backcourt and Red #40 then touched the ball with his next dribble?

Nice video. We don't get great look, but it's still a nice video for rule discussion.

An interrupted dribble is still a dribble, but it is unclear which dribbling rules apply during this time.
For example, may the dribbler step on the sideline during an interrupted dribble without violating? Most would answer, yes.
Can the dribbler touch the ball with both hands simultaneously in an attempt to regain control and then continue to dribble? Most would answer, no.
Does the three points rule still apply? I don’t know.

Most ???
 

All should answer yes.

4-15-6-D: During an interrupted dribble: Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.

All should answer no.

4.15.4 SITUATION D: While dribbling: (c) the ball hits A1’s foot and bounces away but A1 is able to overtake and pick it up; RULING: In (c), the dribble ended when A1 caught the ball; Even though the dribble has ended in (c), A1 may recover the ball but may not dribble again. (9-5)

If it goes off his leg and the his leg is clearly in the FC, I would think the three points is not a hard-fast rule in that specific situation. That being said I would agree that this is likely not very clear as to the issue of a dribble normally coming from the BC to the FC. I think this would be similar to the ball touching your leg and going out of bounds. Yes it is an interrupted dribble, but the ball had FC status while the player is touching the ball.

Peace

Off Leg ...
 

Dribble off hand? Ball is still considered to be in the backcourt (three points). Legal. Play on.

Deflection off leg? Ball is considered to be in the frontcourt (like if the ball had been passed to him and he touched but muffed catching the pass while he was standing in the frontcourt), leading to a backcourt violation?

Not agreeing, but not disagreeing either.

Maybe one of those fuzzy, gray areas that the NFHS hasn't considered in the past zillion years?

Is an interrupted dribble a dribble?

Has the dribble ended?

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.

I think that this interrupted dribble is still a dribble (it hasn't ended) and that the "three points" rule is still in effect and applies.

Just my opinion, not cast in bronze.

The three-points rule states that the ball must touch the court, not a player, in the frontcourt in order to gain frontcourt status.

Legal Play ...
 

Agree. After looking at the definition of ending a dribble, I'm convinced that this was a legal play, and not a backcourt violation.

Nice thread.

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.

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

Three Point 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.

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

Definition Of Ending A Dribble ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

4-4-6 In Full Force ...
 

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.

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.

Well again the issue is not for me whether the dribble ended. This is not an issue of losing a dribble. This is an issue of the status of the ball. If you dribble off your leg while in the FC, the ball has reached FC status. The rest is about last and first touches in the FC as it relates to a BC violation.

And we are not going to solve this by the discussion here. So you can stop repeating the dribble rule because that is not why I think this is a violation.

Peace

Ball Location ...
 

Not according to this specific (backcourt to frontcourt dribble) situation and Article 6 of the Ball Location Rule.

Let's turn away from a dribble definition (I believe that we can now all agree that the dribble, even if interrupted, never ended) and look at "status" rules.

JRutledge himself correctly states that "this is an issue of the status of the ball", so let's take at close look at "status" rules.

JRutledge can point to Article 2 and Article 4 to make his interpretation, but if, and only if, if he totally and completely ignores Article 6.

Rule 4 - Section 4 - Ball Location
ART. 2 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.
ART. 4 A ball which touches a player … is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location.
ART. 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.

I believe that the NFHS views Article 6 as a "three points dribble exception" to Article 2 and Article 4, that certainly can't be ignored, and certainly should not be ignored.

Put simply:

And, of course, we can't be sure if the ball actually did deflect off the player's leg, body, etc., so that component is purely academic.

If one is not sure, don't call it.

Assume No Deflection ...
 

So, for sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that there was no deflection (interrupted dribble), that Red #40 simply dribbled the ball "backward".

Wouldn't JRutledge argue that this was also a "status/ball location" issue and that by Red #40 touching the ball while he was standing with both feet in the frontcourt that the ball had gained frontcourt status, also pointing to Article 2 and Article 4 as proof?

I don't see how a backcourt to frontcourt "deflection/fumble/interrupted" dribble in the frontcourt is any different than a "regular" garden variety backcourt to frontcourt dribble in the frontcourt. In both cases Article 6 (three points dribble exception) applies.

Annual Interpretation ...
 

Situations are slightly unclear, but the ruling is as clear as a bell:

2000-01 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 1: Al is straddling the division line after catching and possessing a pass from A2. Al then fumbles the ball …

SITUATION 2: Same situation as above, except Al begins a dribble immediately upon fumbling the ball and retreats to his/her backcourt to avoid a defender.

RULING: 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. Therefore, the play is legal and play continues. COMMENT: 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.

"Only relevant during a dribble" is why knowing the definition of a dribble, and knowing when the dribble ends, is so important to this video interpretation (and sealed the deal for me).

Yes it does. If the dribble had ended (it never ended), the 4-4-6 three point dribble exception wouldn't apply.

What happens if dribbler A1:

1) establishes both feet in the FC
2) has not yet bounced the ball in the FC
3) pushes the ball towards the floor

at which point the ball hits the back of A2's heel, who also has both feet in the FC, and the ball lands in the BC, then:

4) A1 retrieves the ball in the BC by continuing his dribble.

Twist And Shout (The Beatles, 1961) ...
 

Adding a second party jacks this up a notch.

Even more interesting is that a dribble ends when a dribbler loses control due to touch by an opponent, not a teammate, so the dribble hasn't end.

The ball hitting A2's heel (in the frontcourt) is still part of A1's dribble.

My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the 4-4-6 three point dribble exception to 4-4-4 (ball location) still 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.

4-4-4: A ball which touches a player … is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual’s location.

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.

Did the ball achieve frontcourt status? I don't think so.

If one can confidently make this call correctly (whatever turns out to be correct) in a real game, in real time, without guessing, one is a better basketball official than I am (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling and Cary Grant).

Raymond: I hope that you already know the correct answer to this situation and will eventually share the correct answer with us. Please don't be a tease.

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?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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

Again it is not about the dribble if the ball gained status by you touching the ball (not on a clean dribble) and all parts of you are in the FC. Again you are giving your opinion and I am happy for that, but that is just that an opinion. AGain you are focusing on the dribble and I have a player basically bobble the ball while standing in the FC, that is also an opinion. I would suggest if this is an issue, ask the people in your organization what they think. I will ask those I work with what they think. I would not be surprised if we get differing answers. I am OK with that in unusual situations, which in many ways this is.

Peace

Clean Dribble ...
 

Yes, he may be bobbling (some loss of control) the ball, but by definition, he is also still dribbling the ball, his dribble never ended, and the ball hasn't actually "touched down" on the frontcourt.

I like JRutledge's "clean dribble" phrase better than my "regular garden variety dribble" phrase.

Where in the rulebook does it differentiate between a clean dribble and a not clean dribble when it comes dribbling across the division line from backcourt to frontcourt and ball location?

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.

Where does the rulebbok say that the 4-4-6 three point dribble ball location exception only applies to clean dribbles, and that the 4-4-6 three point dribble ball location exception doesn't apply to not clean dribbles?

Age Old Question ...
 

Does the NFHS ever really know what the NFHS wants?

Hypothesis ...
 

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.

How Can It Not Be About The Dribble ...
 

How can it not be about the dribble when a dribble is the only play listed in the "three point dribble across the division line from backcourt to frontcourt ball location exception" rule, so one better know what a dribble is, and when the dribble ends.

The "exception" doesn't apply to a pass, or a pivot, or anything else, just a dribble, and only a dribble.

A dribble is a dribble whether the ball goes directly from a hand to the floor, or from a hand to the dribbler's leg to the floor. As long as it's a dribble the "three point dribble across the division line from backcourt to frontcourt ball location exception" rule applies. In the video, the dribble never ended.

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.

Show me a rule that states otherwise.

What part of the 4-4-6 exception has not been met? The ball never touched the court in the frontcourt. So the ball, by rule 4-4-6 (an important exception to Article 2 and Article 4) never obtained frontcourt status, a significant component of the four component backcourt rule.

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

Peer Review ...
 

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.

Let's see some research and citations from JRutledge, and maybe a few agreements with him from Forum members.

Lack Of An Ending To Said Dribble ...
 

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.

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

Truth Or Dare ...
 

"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.

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

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.

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.

Forgotten Origin ...
 

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).

Interpretation ...
 

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.

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

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

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.

Dribbler ...
 

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.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

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.

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

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

Dribble Bouncing Off Leg ...
 

Thank you for confirming my point that the dribble ever ended.

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.

Great, but that was never an issue or what I was discussing. But we know when people discuss other things you discuss things that were never in the conversation. It is Wednesday.

Peace

Leaving On A Jet Plane (Peter, Paul And Mary, 1967) …
 

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.

.

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

IAABO Fall Seminar ...
 

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.

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.

The Devil Is In The Details ...
 

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).

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.1...=0&w=205&h=166

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

Seeing Is Believing ...
 

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:

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.

Impatient ...
 

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

Simplify ...
 

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.

Where's Fido ???
 

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.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

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%.

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

Video Interpretation ...
 

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".

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.

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.

Dribble Or Bounce Pass ...
 

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.

Quandary ...
 

.. 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).

True Purpose And True Intent ...
 

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.

A Few Good Questions ...
 

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.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...
 

In the regular, garden variety basketball play of a dribbler making an off the dribble bounce pass to a teammate, when, by definition, does the dribble actually end (and the pass begin)?

When the player is no longer dribbling?

How does one define "no longer" dribbling?

I don't believe that all answers can be found in 4-14 (above).

One must go beyond 4-14 to define the end of a dribble in some cases, often very common cases, not odd, or rare, at all.

Could the answer be when the dribble changes into a pass (à la Camron Rust), or a shot, or something else?

How about, when the dribbler is no longer batting (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand) or pushing the ball to the floor?

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

Going back dozens of posts, is an interrupted dribble still a dribble?

Is the ball being intentionally struck with the hand?

Did the dribble ever end in the video?

Did the deflection end the dribble, or did the deflection just change the dribble into an interrupted dribble (which may still have been a part of a dribble)?

Would we all allow a player to "catch up" to an interrupted dribble (deflected off the dribbler's leg) and continue to dribble?

We wouldn't if we considered the interrupted dribble (deflected off dribbler's leg) to end the "first dribble", it would be an illegal (second) dribble.

Things that make you go hmmm.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.R...=0&w=226&h=170