Ball status and the Referee

[Raymond]

Official has a heel on the division line and the other foot 2-3 feet inside the front court. Ball hits the official's front foot. Does that give the ball backcourt status, and it's thus a backcourt violation when Team A then touches the ball in the front court?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Official has a heel on the division line and the other foot 2-3 feet inside the front court. Ball hits the official's front foot. Does that give the ball backcourt status, and it's thus a backcourt violation when Team A then touches the ball in the front court?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I'd say yes.

In a similar situation where the official had once foot OOB, it would be a violation.

[BillyMac]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

I'm aware of the rule. Is the spirit and intent of the rules intended to be that the entire official's body to be considered backcourt/OOB even if he's in some kind of staggered stance and only his heel is touching the division line or boundary line?

Do the rules makers really intend for us to call it out of bounds if the ball hits two feet inside the court just because part of the official is touching the sideline?

I'm talking about real world application.

So I am asking for you to tell me if you would call (or have called) a BC violation in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm aware of the rule. Is the spirit and intent of the rules intended to be that the entire official's body to be considered backcourt/OOB even if he's in some kind of staggered stance and only his heel is touching the division line or boundary line?

Do the rules makers really intend for us to call it out of bounds if the ball hits two feet inside the court just because part of the official is touching the sideline?

I'm talking about real world application.

So I am asking for you to tell me if you would call (or have called) a BC violation in the OP.

The philosophy that I have always known is, that if you are out of bounds and the ball hits you, the ball is out of bounds even if the actual body part or thing that the ball touches is not out of bounds. Similar to a player who is touching out of bounds with one foot but the inbounds foot touches the ball.

Is that how it should be? Maybe not. But I think that is consistent with how we apply the rules in other areas and unless there is something specific to say otherwise, that is how I have always applied this. This happens mostly 1 or 2 times every couple of seasons. So it does not come up very often to where it even matters.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So I am asking for you to tell me if you would call (or have called) a BC violation in the OP?

Yes I would, I do no not consider this to be a subjective situation, nor purpose and intent situation, not even close, don't even need time to think about, just instinctively call it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes I would, I do no not consider this to be a subjective situation, nor purpose and intent situation, not even close, don't even need time to think about, just instinctively call it.

You would intinctively know your rear heel was on the division line? You've mentioned quite often how you have so many things to think about...LOL

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You would intinctively know your rear heel was on the division line?

The painted line is so much thicker than the rest of the court, and some of us have very sensitive heels.

To your OP -- if I knew I was OOB / on the division line, I would call it.

I've only been hit once where it was close and I looked down and decided I was NOT oob and let play continue.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You would intinctively know your rear heel was on the division line?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

if I knew I was OOB / on the division line, I would call it ... where it was close and I looked down and decided I was NOT oob and let play continue.

Agree with bob.

If I knew I was standing on a "boundary" line before, or if I knew immediately after without moving, I would call it.

If I didn't know, of course, I couldn't and wouldn't call it.

And if I knew that I wasn't on a "boundary" line (during or immediately after without moving after), of course, I shouldn't and wouldn't call it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The painted line is so much thicker than the rest of the line, and some of us have very sensitive heels.

So many coats of paint I often trip over them.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The painted line is so much thicker than the rest of the court, and some of us have very sensitive heels.

To your OP -- if I knew I was OOB / on the division line, I would call it.

I've only been hit once where it was close and I looked down and decided I was NOT oob and let play continue.

Your last paragraph is how I handled it. If I was hit by the ball, I would look directly down from that body part. If I saw the boundary line, I was out of bounds. If I saw playing court, I was inbounds.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk