backcourt violation
 

When player A advances the ball with a dribble, he gets to the midcourt line and straddles the line. He receives defensive pressure and goes to the backcourt to then continue advancing the ball to the frontcourt.

Is this a backcourt violation as he was not completely into the front court when he moved sideways and backwards into the backcourt and then on to the frontcourt?

Is the violation related to the relationship of the midcourt line to the ball, to the player's foot or to both feet? Is the line itself in the frontcourt or the backcourt? What if he only touches a part of midcourt line and does not go completely over the line?

Thanks.

Before the dribbler attains front court status, both feet and the ball must enter the front court. If one of the three doesn't enter the front court, the dribbler hasn't entered the front court and thus no back court violation may ensue. The center line itself is always part of the back court.

Note that this applies only to a player dribbling the ball. The rules citation is NFHS rule 4-4-6.

IAABO rules may differ.......:D

Allow me to translate. :)

All 3 points, both feet and the ball must be in the FC before FC status is achieved. If he steps back into the BC or bounces the ball in the BC after all 3 points are in the FC, it's a violation.

When a player is holding the ball, we're only concerned with the feet. The division line "plane" is not an issue.

You're baiting.

Just to further clarify...

All three points must touch the FC consecutively or simultaneously. If they get left foot front, right foot front, dribble back, dribble back, right foot back, dribble front....it doesn't count. They've never reached the front court.

"All 3 points, both feet and the ball must be in the FC before FC status is achieved."

If If they get left foot front, right foot front, dribble back, dribble back, right foot back, dribble front....then all three are not in the FC. :)

Just to further clarify the further clarification...Oh, never mind :D

Hey, you know how dense some people are on here. I was just trying to provide a "picture" to your entirely correct statement lest anyone be offended by being told they don't have the proper status.

Come on Camron, are implying that there are people in this forum who will nit-pik every single word of your post and then propose 33 other possible variations for which you didn't account? :p (I made sure I didn't end the sentence with a preposition in deference to Chuck) :D