Division Line ...

[BillyMac]

A1, in his frontcourt, is dribbling parallel to, and very close to, the division line.

While dribbling, A1's right foot touches the division line, but not while his hand is in contact with the ball (between dribbles).

Ball never touches (or goes beyond) the division line.

A1's right foot returns to the frontcourt and only then does his hand touch the ball, and he continues his dribble parallel to, and very close to, the division line.

By NFHS definition, the division line is not considered to be a "boundary line".

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

We do have a NFHS rule that tells us what to rule if a dribbler does such a thing at a "boundary line".

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.

But the NFHS does not consider the division line to be a "boundary line".

What do you have?

Intent and purpose?

[Raymond]

Was A1 in player control when he touched the division line and touched the ball?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Was A1 in player control when he touched the division line and touched the ball?

A1 never touched the division line and the ball at the same time.

Backcourt 9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

The ball never went into the backcourt.

The NFHS "carves out" a special note for a player, in player control, dribbling the ball, who touches a boundary line while his hand is not in contact with the ball as an out of bounds violation.

(An interpretation that does not include an interrupted dribble.)

The "carve out" note is necessary because the rules without the "carve out" note would imply that this is not an out of bonds violation, with said player never touching the boundary line and the ball at the same time.

Does the "carve out" note also apply to a possible backcourt violation, even though the division line is not defined as a boundary?

I'm possibly willing to call this a backcourt violation by purpose and intent, even though the actual rule language doesn't seem to support such a violation call.

But purpose and intent can often be so subjective.

[SNIPERBBB]

No because BC violation depends only on ball location status and who touched it last.

It would be a very good and extremely random tr8ck for a player to step on or over the division line and get back off it being the space if a normal dribble.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

It would be a very good and extremely random trick for a player to step on or over the division line and get back off it being the space if a normal dribble.

I seriously doubt that such a player would be able to intentionally "walk the tightrope" to purposely avoid a backcourt violation, but possibly could do it unintentionally, with a nearby official watching.

Of course, the supposedly offended coach will be yelling "backcourt!".

I wasn't officiating when the NFHS first added the 9-3-1-Note to the rulebook (it was already there when I started), so I am not aware of the purpose and intent of the note, but I would guess that it was added so that officials wouldn't have to keep track of rapid split second miniscule movements of both feet and hands in such situations where a dribbler is dribbling very close to a boundary.

Should that same purpose and intent apply to the division line for a backcourt violation?

If so, why didn't the NFHS include a similar note in the interpretation of a backcourt violation in regard to touching the division line with a foot while at the same time not touching the ball?

[SNIPERBBB]

I would imagine it would of been added to avoid the scenario i mentioned with the division. its hard to watch 2 things at the same time that are 2-5 feet a part from 20-40 feet away. Is the dribbler touching the ball at the same time as they're standing on the line? The NOTE removes that judgement issue.