As Rare As Hen's Teeth ...
 

I was just discussing this very rare play with Mike Goodwin.

A1 in their frontcourt is dribbling parallel to, and very near, the division line.

While the ball is not in contact with A1's hand, A1 steps on the division line.

A1 never is touching both the ball and the division line at the same time.

Ball never touches the division line or any other part of backcourt.

It’s not an interrupted dribble.

A1 has both feet in the frontcourt the next time he touches the ball.

Sounds like a backcourt violation because of:

9-3-1 Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

However:

4-9-1: Boundary lines of the court consist of end lines and sidelines.

The division line is not an end line, nor is it a sideline, and thus, it is not a boundary line.

No backcourt violation?

Most of us (including me) would probably still call this a backcourt violation.

What say you?

I am watching a simulcast of the Big 10 and ACC Championships late in the 3rd QTs of both games so my comment may not be as good as my normal Pulitzer Prize winner composing


I have a Backcourt Violation!


1) We all know the Rule for an Offensive Player who is Dribbling the Ball from completely in the Backcourt to completely in the Front Court and this Rule does not apply to an Offensive Player once the Ball has acquired Front Court Status.

2) Yes, the Division Line is not a Boundary Line but for determining Floor Violations by an Offensive Player who has PC of the Ball it has to considered the same as a Boundary Line.

3) We all know that when A1, who is Dribbling, steps on a Boundary Line, even if he/she is not touching the Ball, is considered to have made the Ball go Out-of-Bounds.

4) Therefore, the reasoning in (3) is the same logic/reasoning for the Dribbler in the Play that Billy has presented to the Forum.

5) Therefore, we have a Backcourt Violation.

MTD, Sr.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

While Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s interpretation may be incorrect by the written rule language (4-9-1), it's probably correct by purpose and intent, so I'm not going to try to disagree with him.

I agree with MTD and his logic.
Look at Rules 4-13-1 & 2. Those articles define Frontcourt & Backcourt. Thus the Division line is consider a Boundary line.
So, the result is a Backcourt violation with a throw-in at the 28' mark (NFHS)

Purpose And Intent ...
 

4-13 Court Areas
ART. 1 A team’s frontcourt consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.
ART. 2 A team’s backcourt consists of the rest of the court, including the entire division line and the opponent’s basket and inbounds part of the opponent’s backboard.

More evidence for purpose and intent of a backcourt violation, but rule language clearly says “boundary”, and the division line, while definitely part of the backcourt, is neither an endline, nor is it a sideline, and thus, isn’t a boundary

9-3-1 Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

4-9-1: Boundary lines of the court consist of end lines and sidelines.