|
Division Line ...
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? |
Was A1 in player control when he touched the division line and touched the ball?
Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk |
Carve Out Note ...
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Walk The Tightrope ...
Quote:
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? |
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.
|
Note ...
Quote:
We need a casebook play, or at least an annual interpretation, to clarify. If we call this a backcourt violation, the only support we have is purpose and intent. On the other hand, we may not actually need any support because coaches are most likely ignorant regarding the definition of a boundary and/or the actual rule language of the note. Only way this rare and possibly incorrect backcourt call attracts any attention is if it's the last call in a one point state championship game. Would probably attract more attention if we don't call it, but we would have the support of the actual rule language and would not have to rely on purpose and intent. https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.0...=Api&P=0&h=180 |
I want talking about division line in the past you quoted
|
A1 has committed a Backcourt Violation.
NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA Rules:
1) The Division Line is in the Backcourt of the Team in Control of the Ball. 2) A Player who is Dribbling the Ball is in Control of the Ball. Therefore A1 has Player Control of Ball and Team A has Team Control of the Ball. 3) The moment that A1's foot touched the Division Line A1 committed a Backcourt Violation. 4) Items (1) and (2) are Basketball Rules Fundamentals. MTD, Sr. |
Word Salad ...
Quote:
NFHS 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. Ball was never in the backcourt. |
Flight Of Fancy ...
Quote:
NFHS 4-4-3: Ball Location: A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. Flight could mean a try, a pass, or between dribbles? Between dribbles also includes player control. |
2024-25 NFHS Basketball Rules R4-S12-A1.
The Rule referenced in the heading to my comment is:
"A player is in control of the ball the the player is holding or dribbling a live ball. There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper, or during an interrupted dribble" Furthermore: 2024-25 NCAA Men's Basketball R4-S9-A1b: A player shall be in control when dribbling a live ball inbounds. 2024-25 & 2025-26 NCAA Women's Basketball R4-S8-A1b: A player shall be in control when dribbling a live ball inbounds. 2024-25 NBA Rules Rule 4, Section VI.d(2): A ball being dribbled is in the backcourt if the ball or either foot of the player in in the backcourt. 2025 WNBA Rules Rule 4, Section VI.d(2): A ball being dribbled is in the backcourt if the ball or either foot of the player in in the backcourt. 2024-26 FIBA Rules: Believe me when I say that the FIBA Backcourt Rule is the same as the three/five rules codes but one has to tie multiple Sections together in order to come to the same conclusion. FIBA never (with apologies to J. Dallas Shirley) makes it easy. It still is a Backcourt Violation! MTD, Sr. |
Perfectly Clear ...
Quote:
NFHS 4-4-3: Ball Location: A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. NBA and WNBA make the interpretation perfectly clear. Quote:
Why do we need a special "note" for dribbler near a sideline or an endline, but not for a dribbler near the division line? If NFHS 4-4-3 Ball Location is our "support" for a backcourt call, wouldn't NFHS 4-4-3 Ball Location also cover a dribbler near a sideline or an endline? Then why even have a special "note"? Let's keep it simple and assume that a "dribble" is not an interrupted dribble. That's a whole different bag of worms in a can. |
Fun Facts!!
Quote:
Word "ball" occurs in the: 2024-25 NFHS Basketball: 483 times 2024-25 NCAA Men's Basketball: 689 times 2024-25 & 2025-26 NCAA Women's Basketball: 664 times 2024-25 NBA: 645 times 2025 WNBA: 647 times 2024-26 FIBA: 480 times Word "location" occurs in the: 2024-25 NFHS Basketball: 18 times 2024-25 NCAA Men's Basketball: 9 times 2024-25 & 2025-26 NCAA Women's Basketball: 13 times 2024-25 NBA: 2 times 2025 WNBA: 2 times 2024-26 FIBA: 9 times I will now confine my remarks to the NFHS Rules: ‘Ball Location’ R4-S4: A1: A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player (either player if the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt. A2: 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. A3: A ball which is in flight retains the same location/status as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. A4: A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location/status. ‘Player Location’ R4-S35: A1: The location/status of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the person is touching the floor as far as being: a. Inbounds or out-of-bounds. b. In the frontcourt or backcourt. c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line. A2: When a player is touching the backcourt, out of bounds or the three-point line, the player is located in backcourt, out of bounds or inside the three-point line, respectively. A3: The location/status of an airborne player with reference to the three factors of Article 1 is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher. It appears that everything in the NFHS Rules points the my conclusion that A1 committed a Backcourt Violation. MTD, Sr. |
Contact ...
Quote:
While the player was indeed in the backcourt, he was not in contact with the ball while doing so. Thus, the best support that I can find for a backcourt violation is ... NFHS 4-4-3: Ball Location: A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court. ... and this reference only works if one believes that a ball "between" dribbles is in "flight". It's easy to believe that a try is a ball in "flight", or that pass is a ball in "flight", but a ball between dribbles is a tough sell. Why can't the NFHS be like the NBA and WNBA and make this interpterion "perfect in every way"? Quote:
The NFHS needs to "reconcile" and/or cleanup 9-3-1-Note and/or 4-9-1: 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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47pm. |