Fun With The Division Line …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...u55cSeVA%3D%3D

Is this a backcourt violation? The ball handler steps into the frontcourt and then dribbles the ball in the backcourt. Should a violation have been ruled?

Two choices: This is a backcourt violation. This is not a backcourt violation.

My comment: This is not a backcourt violation. A ball which is in contact with a player is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player the backcourt. When White #3 lifts the foot which is in the frontcourt and places it down in the backcourt, the location of the ball has not changed. The ball is still in the backcourt and no violation has occurred.

[JRutledge]

No, he never gains FC status. He is not in the FC until all his body or he is dribbling the ball goes completely to the FC.

This was not even hard.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Early returns from IAABO members are favoring no backcourt violation, but for the wrong reason, with some members referring to both feet and the ball needing to be in the front court to establish front court status which is only for dribbling situations, which this is not. This is a ball location (stepping) situation based on the lifting of feet, the actual "location" of the ball (touching the court) doesn't come into play here. It would be a different call (illegal backcourt) is the "backcourt" foot was lifted and put back on the floor, even if the ball never touched the court.

4.4.1 SITUATION: As Team A is advancing the ball from its backcourt toward its frontcourt, A1 passes the ball to A2. A2 catches the ball while both feet are on the floor – with one foot on either side of the division line. In this situation, either foot may be the pivot foot. (a) A2 lifts the foot which is in the backcourt and then puts it back on the floor in the backcourt; or (b) A2 lifts the foot which is in the frontcourt, pivots and puts it on the floor in the backcourt. RULING: In (a), it is a -backcourt violation. When A2, while holding the ball, lifts the foot which was in the backcourt, the ball is now in the frontcourt. When A2’s foot then touches in the backcourt, it is a violation. In (b), when A2 lifts the foot which is in the frontcourt and places it down in the backcourt, the location of the ball has not changed. The ball is still in the backcourt and no violation has occurred. (4-35-2)

[Raymond]

Rather basic play. Maybe IAABO members need to spend some time in these forums.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Maybe IAABO need to spend some time in these forums.

Confusing dribbling across the division line (three points) with stepping across the division line (player location) is a common, but unacceptable mistake.

We often saw it here on the Forum back in the good old days when the Forum was busy.

When trainers teach the three points dribbling across the division line rule, they should really stress that this absolutely only applies to a dribbler, and no other situations, like stepping across the division line.

[JRutledge]

This might be semantics, but it is actually 2 feet and the ball, it just when you hold the ball you have not crossed the division line. I get it, but I would not worry about that as much because as long as they know that once the other foot crosses, you cannot dribble into the backcourt.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This might be semantics, but it is actually 2 feet and the ball, it just when you hold the ball you have not crossed the division line.

It depends (see 4.4.1 SITUATION).

Only two ways for an individual player on his own (with no help from teammates (as with a pass)) to get ball across the division line, dribbling and stepping (while holding the ball).

Only dribbling involves two feet and the ball.

Stepping (while holding the ball (not dribbling)) involves the lifting of a foot, and then putting said foot back on the floor, and a backcourt call, or no call, depends on where (backcourt or frontcourt) the foot was lifted and put back the floor.

Here's an example of holding the ball and crossing the division line, without a dribble, and thus without the ball touching the floor, leading to a backcourt call.

4.4.1 SITUATION: As Team A is advancing the ball from its backcourt toward its frontcourt, A1 passes the ball to A2. A2 catches the ball while both feet are on the floor – with one foot on either side of the division line. In this situation, either foot may be the pivot foot. (a) A2 lifts the foot which is in the backcourt and then puts it back on the floor in the backcourt; RULING: In (a), it is a -backcourt violation. When A2, while holding the ball, lifts the foot which was in the backcourt, the ball is now in the frontcourt. When A2’s foot then touches in the backcourt, it is a violation.

[BillyMac]

I went back to the website to see more recent responses.

Good news. Several IAABO members have correctly commented that the ten second count should continue even after White #3's left foot touches down in the frontcourt.

Bad news. Many, many IAABO members continue to correctly answer no backcourt violation, but for the wrong reason, referring to both feet and the ball needing to be in the front court to establish front court status. IAABO members post answers and reasons before having the ability to see other's responses, so it's not a matter of copying from others, these are independent responses. And these will show up as correct answers in the final results.

Even a friend and colleague of mine who has worked more state finals than anybody I know and who is also a very good rules guy, leading many training committees, commented on both feet and the ball needing to be in the front court to establish front court status in this video.

Maybe these comments are referring to White #3, after initially stepping across the division line, finally stopping the ten second count by dribbling across the division line (both feet and the ball) a few seconds later in the center circle.

Rose colored glasses. Glass half full.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Rather basic play. Maybe IAABO members need to spend some time in these forums.

The good news is that IABBO must be getting lots of new officials. Unless you're so new that you've never done a sanctioned game, you shouldn't miss this one.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... you shouldn't miss this one.

Most didn't, good no calls, but for the wrong reasons.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... you shouldn't miss this one.

Good news. Just read a response that stated that this was not a dribbling situation and thus should not involve both feet and the ball.

Bad news. Same response stated that it was a backcourt violation because both the player (with no reference to feet) and the ball broke the "plane of the division line" giving the ball frontcourt status before going back into the backcourt.

[JRutledge]

You have too much time on your hand. Of course there will be people that do not know the specifics of the rule. Welcome to social media.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course there will be people that do not know the specifics of the rule.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Confusing dribbling across the division line (three points) with stepping across the division line (player location) is a common, but unacceptable mistake.

Agree. Anybody can screw up a rule, or an interpretation, even me, even the best officials, even the best "rules" officials, even JRutledge.

But it isn't just the wrong reasons that bother me, it's the large number of trained officials who answered correctly, but with the wrong reasons.

And unless one, as an IAABO member, scrolls through each individual response on the website, one won't begin to understand the depth of this problem because these "correct" answers will show up in the final results as "correct".

I hope that the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters address this "dribble" issue in their play commentary.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. Anybody can screw up a rule, or an interpretation, even me, even the best officials, even the best "rules" officials, even JRutledge.

But it isn't just the wrong reasons that bother me, it's the large number of trained officials who answered correctly, but with the wrong reasons.

...

Which is why I made the statement in another thread about young/new officials being careful whom they listen to. I've seen plenty of bad advice/info passed on by respected veteran officials. And why I tell young officials never to use the line "XZY/Somebody told me" when it comes to rules.

[JRutledge]

I was not talking about who screws up a rule, I am talking about you will have officials that do not spend a lot of time with the nuance of the rules. They will not say everything correctly or realize they did not say something correctly. I honestly cannot worry about that unless I am in a classroom or teaching setting. These are people answering a poll and commenting from all kinds of things. Just not shocking. Go to a social media officiating group and you will see what I am talking about.

Peace