Strange backcourt violation

[jamie]

A1 is dribbling up the court just before the half-court line he attempts to
dribble behind his back. The ball stays behind him in the back court while
he continues into the front court. A1 stops, turns around and with both
feet in the front court, (the ball has bounced once in the backcourt).
A1 then gains control with both feet in the frontcourt but dribbles the
ball in the backcourt.

A1's dribble was clearly interrupted, is this a backcourt violation or does
the 3 point (two feet & ball) rule still apply ?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by jamie
A1 is dribbling up the court just before the half-court line he attempts to dribble behind his back. The ball stays behind him in the back court while he continues into the front court. A1 stops, turns around and with both
feet in the front court, (the ball has bounced once in the backcourt). A1 then gains control with both feet in the frontcourt but dribbles the ball in the backcourt.

A1's dribble was clearly interrupted, is this a backcourt violation or does the 3 point (two feet & ball) rule still apply ?

No, this is not a BC violation. You have one of two things here, depending on what actually occurred.

1- If you consider A1 to be in player control during the entire play, then all 3 points were never in the FC.

2- If you consider the dribble behind the back as an interrupted dribble, then the count would continue but the ball was never in the FC, therefore no violation.

Either way, the ball never attained FC status.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by jamie
A1 is dribbling up the court just before the half-court line he attempts to
dribble behind his back. The ball stays behind him in the back court while
he continues into the front court. A1 stops, turns around and with both
feet in the front court, (the ball has bounced once in the backcourt).
A1 then gains control with both feet in the frontcourt but dribbles the
ball in the backcourt.

A1's dribble was clearly interrupted, is this a backcourt violation or does
the 3 point (two feet & ball) rule still apply ?

Boy - if there ever was a rule I thought I was an expert on, it's the backcourt violation rule, but I've never seen this happen.

After reading BBR's post above, I guess I would have to agree that the ball never achieved frontcourt status, although I don't think this is the intent of the three points rule.

BTW - if he grabbed the ball after an interrupted dribble and then dribbled again (whether front or back court is irrelevant) - it's an illegal dribble violation. I guess your could just call that and not worry about the over and back. That would make your life easier

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Jan 22nd, 2001 at 01:10 PM]

[walter]

Oh I'll jump in and give it a shot. What you have is an interrupted dribble. Team control has never ended although player control has, by rule. (NFHS 4-12-1, 4-12-2, 4-15-5). Because of player control ending, A1 has front court status while the ball still has backcourt status. In my opinion, as soon as A1 touches the ball again, the ball gains front court status. A1 then re-establishes control and dribbles the ball in the backcourt. Once the ball touches A1 again after the first initial touching after the interrupted dribble, a backcourt violation occurs. If A1 merely touched the ball once and only once, you'd have nothing. It would be the same as if A2 had passed it from A's backcourt and it deflected off of A1 who was in A's frontcourt and went backcourt. Unless another A player is the first to touch it there, you have nothing. In this case, you had team control. The ball and the player had froncourt status (A1 touching the ball while A1's status was in the frontcourt gives the ball frontcourt status), A1 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, first to touch the ball in the backcourt (the dribble of the ball re-established the ball's backcourt status (IMHO)). A weird play to be sure. Recognizing that player control ended on the interrupted dribble, to me is key.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by walter
Oh I'll jump in and give it a shot. What you have is an interrupted dribble. Team control has never ended although player control has, by rule. (NFHS 4-12-1, 4-12-2, 4-15-5). Because of player control ending, A1 has front court status while the ball still has backcourt status. In my opinion, as soon as A1 touches the ball again, the ball gains front court status. A1 then re-establishes control and dribbles the ball in the backcourt. Once the ball touches A1 again after the first initial touching after the interrupted dribble, a backcourt violation occurs.

I disagree. If he attempted to retrieve the ball and fumbled it, and then recovered, then you have a BC violation. But to just continue the dribble, as you describe, is not a violation. His dribble never stopped, it was just interrupted. Therefore, 4-4-6 still applies since the dribble never ceased.

[walter]

I agree the dribble never ended. That being said, hear me out. It may be that we agree to disagree. A1 is no longer in control of the ball under 4-12-1 and 4-15-5. The ball has maintained backcourt status. A1, on the other hand, gained frontcourt status. Under 4-15-1, a dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control... When that control ended, under this scenario, unless A1 re-established himself in the backcourt and picked up the dribble again, you have a frontcourt player dribbling the ball in the backcourt. Player control ended when the dribble became interrupted. How is then any different than if you had A1 pass the ball from the backcourt. A1 in the frontcourt near the end line, instead of catching the ball bats the ball to the floor in the backcourt beginning a dribble. You immediately have a backcourt violation because A1 had frontcourt status and when the ball hit him, it had frontcourt status too. To me, this scenario is the same principle. A1's conrol ended the second the official ruled it an interrupted dribble (i.e. no player control of the ball although team control still exists). to me, A1 at that point becomes subject to the same rules, as far as backcourt/frontcourt go, as every one else on the floor does with respect to a ball with backcourt status. Agree? Disagree?

[BktBallRef]

Again, because the dribble never ended. Player control is of no consequence. The dribble was interrupted, not stopped. Therefore, the dribbler can continue the dribble no matter whether his feet are in the FC or BC since the ball never attained FC status. You're confusing player control with the end of the dribble. They are not one and the same. See 4-15-4 below.

4-15-4
The dribble ends when:
a. The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both hands.
b. The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.
c. The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
d. An opponent bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) the ball.
e. The ball becomes dead.

In your comparison, A1 was never dribbling the ball in the BC. That is the difference.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Those were my thoughts, precisely, BktBallRef--the dribble was interrupted, not ended. No violation. Good points re: having player control versus how a dribble ends.

Mark, I too feel like I have a good grasp of backcourt violation situations. Interestingly, though, there are so many different variations that can occur, that it is still easy to become confused. At our association meeting last night, I demonstrated a variety of situations in "real time" on the court (OK, maybe a tad slower than the "real" time in games we work), then asked each time if the play was legal or illegal. It struck me funny that the veteran officials almost never raised their hands to make a choice, as though not wanting to "risk" their reputations with an incorrect guess. In fact, many had no idea if what they saw was legal or not. I admit, though, I hadn't thought of Jamie's scenario, so didn't demonstrate and discuss that one.

[Peter Devana]

Great Post!!! You are right when you noticed that many so called elite officials don't offer their opinions when confronted by certain situations-Doesn't that tell you something about your association???

[moose69]

Coming from a players perspective, I don't think PC ends when you go behind your back. Even a forword or post player such as myself can go behind the back in a controlled manner. I'd have to see it to call it, but i don't think you have a BC violation.

Tyler

[Peter Devana]

Hey Moose 69 ,
You are absolutely right!

[Todd VandenAkker]

Originally posted by Peter Devana
You are right when you noticed that many so called elite officials don't offer their opinions when confronted by certain situations-Doesn't that tell you something about your association???

Ummm . . . I don't know, Peter. What does it seem to tell YOU about my association? (But be careful, 'cuz I'm on the Board and am Program Chairperson for the boys' season) (girls play in the fall here in Mich.).