Backcourt violation?

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Ok, here's a play that someone mentioned to me and I wanted opinions. A1 is holding the ball in his frontcourt near the midcourt line. The referee is standing nearby and is straddling the midcourt line; one foot in the frontcourt, one foot in the backcourt. A1 pivots and steps on the ref's "frontcourt" foot.

Is this a backcourt violation, just as if the official were straddling the OOB line? I think so.

But here's the tricky twist. What if we change it so that it's not the referee straddling the line, but another player instead? Is it still a backcourt violation? Because now, the OOB analogy doesn't work. It's not a violation to touch another player who is OOB while holding the ball. In that case, it's only a violation for the ball to touch the player who is OOB. So is it a backcourt violation to touch a player who is in the backcourt while holding the ball?

I just reread your original post. Are you calling an OOB violation if an official has one foot IB and one foot OB and the dribbler touches the official's IB foot?

[Jimgolf]

Remember, if we're playing official schoolyard rules, that "Electricity" applies here.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by zebraman

The second one is easy ...The second is is tougher...

I concur with this analysis.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

I concur with this analysis.

Hey give me a break. That was prior to 6 AM in my time zone and I hadn't even had my first cup of coffee at work yet!

[Nevadaref]

Chuck,
This case book play was a recent unannouced change. JR pointed it out a couple of seasons ago. If you follow its logic, then both of the plays you inquired about are legal.


7.1.1 SITUATION A: A1, while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline, touches (a) player B1; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom are out of bounds. RULING: A1 is not out of bounds in (a), (b), (c) or (d). To be out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some object on or outside a boundary line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation.

[BillyMac]

Nevadaref:

Thanks for pointing out this unannounced change. I noticed this last year while preparing for our Board #6 Refresher Exam. If I recall correctly, previously a player, while holding the ball inbounds, was allowed to touch a player who was out of bounds, without being called for an out of bounds violation. Of course player excluded coaches and referees (not sure about substitutes), which meant that previously, if said player contacted a coach or referee who was out of bounds, said player would be deemed out of bounds.

I hate it when the NFHS makes changes without listed them on their annual rule changes list. For someone who has been refereeing for as long as me, the changes are more difficult to remember than the rules themselves, so it helps when the NFHS highlights changes every year.

By the way, it was me, through my Board #6 interpreter, who brought attention to the NFHS a few years ago about the deletion of the "captain's line up" rule when several subsitutes enter the game at the same time. A coach had seen a request for a line up in a freshman game that he had been observing. He asked me if there was such a rule, to which I replied that there was. When I went to the rule book to find the citation, I couldn't find it, so I figured it was one of those unannounced changes. After questioning my interpreter, he discovered that the rule had been inadvertently left out a few years before, which continued for several years, until the coach noticed it and brought it to my attention. It's back in the book now.

You would think that with all it's resources, including proofreaders and checkers, that the NFHS would be able to prevent unannounced changes and deletions. Go figure.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nevadaref:
By the way, it was me, through my Board #6 interpreter, who brought attention to the NFHS a few years ago about the deletion of the "captain's line up" rule when several subsitutes enter the game at the same time. A coach had seen a request for a line up in a freshman game that he had been observing. He asked me if there was such a rule, to which I replied that there was. When I went to the rule book to find the citation, I couldn't find it, so I figured it was one of those unannounced changes. After questioning my interpreter, he discovered that the rule had been inadvertently left out a few years before, which continued for several years, until the coach noticed it and brought it to my attention. It's back in the book now.

I've got news for you my friend. There was a lot more than one person who alerted the NFHS to this.

[BillyMac]

BktBallRef:

According to out interperter, Peter Palermino, the NFHS gave credit to our local Board for initiating two rule changes in 2003-04, the return of the captain's lineup, and the additional definition of basketball interference to include when a player pulls down a moveable ring that contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position. The second change was brought to the attention of our interpreter by Art Williams after he had observed such action in one of his varsity games, and he questioned what the call should have been. Peter Palermino followed up and brought it to the attention of the NFHS.

In the case of the captain's lineup, I was simply the middle man. The original question came from Michael Garry, the assistant coach of the Southington (CT) High School boys varsity basketball team. When I couldn't find the citation for the rule, and couldn't remember the deletion of this rule as being a rule change, I brought it to the attention of our interpreter, Peter Palermino, who did all the hard work of following the chain of command to find out what happened to the rule and to get it reinstated by the NFHS.

I was hoping that my post would generate some professional discussion about the inner workings of the NFHS. I had hoped that at least one of our Forum members was familiar with the NFHS and could explain how rule changes, like the out of bounds coach or referee being touched by a player with the ball in bounds, could go unannounced, or how a long standing rule, like the captian's line up, could dissappear unannounced. The intent of my posting was not about who found these errors first.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

According to out interperter, Peter Palermino, the NFHS gave credit to our local Board for initiating two rule changes in 2003-04, the return of the captain's lineup, and the additional definition of basketball interference to include when a player pulls down a moveable ring that contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.

Ok, here's some professional discussion....

Does your interpreter, Peter Palermino, also still advocate calling BI using advantage/disadvantage also? Iow, if you felt the ball wasn't gonna go in, you then don't have to call the B!?

Or are those questions redundant?I know from your past posts that your IAABO board teaches that the Tower Philosophy of advantage/disadvantage applies to all violations anyway.

[BillyMac]

Jurassic Referee:

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules states "it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation". This can be found on page 10 of the 2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Book. No where in this section does it state that this only applies to fouls. No where in this section does it state that this does not apply to violations. In fact, the word "foul" and the word "violation", do not even appear in this section.

Our Board teaches us to apply all the NFHS rules, in an intelligent manner, knowing the intent and purpose of the rules, and the principle of advantage and disadvantage, to each play situation.

Please "make the call" in each of these play situations:

1) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. In this hotly contested game, Team B has pressed after each score, creating several turnovers by Team A. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 clearly steps over the line, onto the court, by at least one inch, before passing the ball to a player A-2. "You make the call".

2) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. Team B is ahead by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter and all five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt in a 2-1-2 zone defense. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 slightly steps over the line, onto the court, by about one-half of one inch, before passing the ball to player A-2. "You make the call".

3) Team A players, in their own frontcourt, are passing and dribbling the ball around the three point line, setting up their offense. Post player A-5, Team A's top scorer in the game, is standing down low on the block, trying to seal off player B-5. Post player A-5 backs into the lane so that two inches of his sneaker is in the lane. Due to aggressive defense, Team A is having difficulty getting the ball to player A-5, who is in the lane for more than three seconds. "You make the call".

4) Team A players, in their own frontcourt, are passing and dribbling the ball around the three point line, setting up their offense. Post player A-5 is standing near the elbow, with her back to the basket. About one-half of one inch of the back of one of her sneakers is on the free throw line. The other four players on Team A are not attempting to get the ball to player A-5, but seem to be trying to set up an open outside shot. Player A-5 maintains this position for more than three seconds. "You make the call".

5) Point guard A-1, dribbling near the top of the key is aggressively guarded by player B-1. Using a hesitiation move, the ball comes to rest for a moment in A-1's left hand, before she makes a cross-over dribble to her right and dribbles past player B-1 for an easy layup. "You make the call".

6) Backup point guard A-1, with Team A behind by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter, is dribbling the ball in his backcourt. All five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt, playing a 2-1-2 zone defense. Team A's coach calls out a play to A-1, who while looking at his coach, has the ball come to rest for a moment in his right hand before continuing to dribble with his right hand. "You make the call".

Members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules, and the principle of advantage and disadvantage, to make the following calls:

1) Throwin violation.
2) No violation.
3) Three second violation.
4) No violation (or communicate to A-5 to get out of the lane).
5) Carrying (palming) violation (double dribble, travelling).
6) No violation.

Jurassic Referee, please make your call on each of these six play situations. After you do that, please, once and for all, show me, if possible, in writing, where it states that The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules, including the principle of advantage and disadvantage, only applies to fouls and never applies to violations. Then we can compare what is written on page ten of the 2005-06 NFHS Rules book to your written documentation.

By the way, it would not bother me at all if you could prove your point. It would give me the proper background for my new Board #6 committee assignment this season, the New Member Training Committee. I would have no problem admitting that our Board #6 application of The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules, including the principle of advantage and disadvantage, has been wrong, if you can back up your application of this principle with something other than your personal opinion. After following your posts on this Forum for the past two years, I can tell that you are very knowledgeable about the rules, and I am tempted to side with your opinion, but I would like further documentation.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

BktBallRef:

According to out interperter, Peter Palermino, the NFHS gave credit to our local Board for initiating two rule changes in 2003-04, the return of the captain's lineup, and the additional definition of basketball interference to include when a player pulls down a moveable ring that contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position. The second change was brought to the attention of our interpreter by Art Williams after he had observed such action in one of his varsity games, and he questioned what the call should have been. Peter Palermino followed up and brought it to the attention of the NFHS.

In the case of the captain's lineup, I was simply the middle man. The original question came from Michael Garry, the assistant coach of the Southington (CT) High School boys varsity basketball team. When I couldn't find the citation for the rule, and couldn't remember the deletion of this rule as being a rule change, I brought it to the attention of our interpreter, Peter Palermino, who did all the hard work of following the chain of command to find out what happened to the rule and to get it reinstated by the NFHS.

I was hoping that my post would generate some professional discussion about the inner workings of the NFHS. I had hoped that at least one of our Forum members was familiar with the NFHS and could explain how rule changes, like the out of bounds coach or referee being touched by a player with the ball in bounds, could go unannounced, or how a long standing rule, like the captian's line up, could dissappear unannounced. The intent of my posting was not about who found these errors first.

Yea, sure it was. You have only made mention of it twice and offered some unknown/unsubstantiated KUDOS from the NFHS. Good for you guys, where would HS basketball be without the "request for line up?" You must have some real geniouses playing back there.

I have only seen this used at the grade school level, maybe one day when I get to the big time, I will see it more.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

BktBallRef:

According to out interperter, Peter Palermino, the NFHS gave credit to our local Board for initiating two rule changes in 2003-04, the return of the captain's lineup, and the additional definition of basketball interference to include when a player pulls down a moveable ring that contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position. The second change was brought to the attention of our interpreter by Art Williams after he had observed such action in one of his varsity games, and he questioned what the call should have been. Peter Palermino followed up and brought it to the attention of the NFHS.

In the case of the captain's lineup, I was simply the middle man. The original question came from Michael Garry, the assistant coach of the Southington (CT) High School boys varsity basketball team. When I couldn't find the citation for the rule, and couldn't remember the deletion of this rule as being a rule change, I brought it to the attention of our interpreter, Peter Palermino, who did all the hard work of following the chain of command to find out what happened to the rule and to get it reinstated by the NFHS.

I was hoping that my post would generate some professional discussion about the inner workings of the NFHS. I had hoped that at least one of our Forum members was familiar with the NFHS and could explain how rule changes, like the out of bounds coach or referee being touched by a player with the ball in bounds, could go unannounced, or how a long standing rule, like the captian's line up, could dissappear unannounced. The intent of my posting was not about who found these errors first.

Well, hey....I mean if Peter said it, then I guess it has to be true....whoever the hell Peter is. That's tremendous, especially since we discussed it on this board long before the season even started and the fact that several emailed the NFHS about it. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Jurassic Referee:

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules states "it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation". This can be found on page 10 of the 2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Book. No where in this section does it state that this only applies to fouls. No where in this section does it state that this does not apply to violations. In fact, the word "foul" and the word "violation", do not even appear in this section.

Our Board teaches us to apply all the NFHS rules, in an intelligent manner, knowing the intent and purpose of the rules, and the principle of advantage and disadvantage, to each play situation.

Please "make the call" in each of these play situations:

1) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. In this hotly contested game, Team B has pressed after each score, creating several turnovers by Team A. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 clearly steps over the line, onto the court, by at least one inch, before passing the ball to a player A-2. "You make the call".

2) Player A-1 is standing out of bounds, ready to make a throwin after a score by Team B. Team B is ahead by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter and all five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt in a 2-1-2 zone defense. In attempting to inbound the ball, player A-1 slightly steps over the line, onto the court, by about one-half of one inch, before passing the ball to player A-2. "You make the call".

3) Team A players, in their own frontcourt, are passing and dribbling the ball around the three point line, setting up their offense. Post player A-5, Team A's top scorer in the game, is standing down low on the block, trying to seal off player B-5. Post player A-5 backs into the lane so that two inches of his sneaker is in the lane. Due to aggressive defense, Team A is having difficulty getting the ball to player A-5, who is in the lane for more than three seconds. "You make the call".

4) Team A players, in their own frontcourt, are passing and dribbling the ball around the three point line, setting up their offense. Post player A-5 is standing near the elbow, with her back to the basket. About one-half of one inch of the back of one of her sneakers is on the free throw line. The other four players on Team A are not attempting to get the ball to player A-5, but seem to be trying to set up an open outside shot. Player A-5 maintains this position for more than three seconds. "You make the call".

5) Point guard A-1, dribbling near the top of the key is aggressively guarded by player B-1. Using a hesitiation move, the ball comes to rest for a moment in A-1's left hand, before she makes a cross-over dribble to her right and dribbles past player B-1 for an easy layup. "You make the call".

6) Backup point guard A-1, with Team A behind by twenty points with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter, is dribbling the ball in his backcourt. All five of Team B's players are in Team A's frontcourt, playing a 2-1-2 zone defense. Team A's coach calls out a play to A-1, who while looking at his coach, has the ball come to rest for a moment in his right hand before continuing to dribble with his right hand. "You make the call".

Members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules, and the principle of advantage and disadvantage, to make the following calls:

1) Throwin violation.
2) No violation.
3) Three second violation.
4) No violation (or communicate to A-5 to get out of the lane).
5) Carrying (palming) violation (double dribble, travelling).
6) No violation.

Jurassic Referee, please make your call on each of these six play situations. After you do that, please, once and for all, show me, if possible, in writing, where it states that The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules, including the principle of advantage and disadvantage, only applies to fouls and never applies to violations. Then we can compare what is written on page ten of the 2005-06 NFHS Rules book to your written documentation.

By the way, it would not bother me at all if you could prove your point. It would give me the proper background for my new Board #6 committee assignment this season, the New Member Training Committee. I would have no problem admitting that our Board #6 application of The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules, including the principle of advantage and disadvantage, has been wrong, if you can back up your application of this principle with something other than your personal opinion. After following your posts on this Forum for the past two years, I can tell that you are very knowledgeable about the rules, and I am tempted to side with your opinion, but I would like further documentation.

Bill McKernan
International Association of Approved Basketball Officials
Central Connecticut Board #6
"One Rule Plus One Mechanic Plus One Interpretation Equals The Board # 6 Way"



Based on the "one rule...blah blah blah = the board 6 way" there is no way you can have anything other than violations on the plays you referenced. If you don't call it that way every time, you have more than one interpretation of the rules. All hail CCB6

[BillyMac]

icallfouls and BkrBallRef seem to think this this post has turned into a contest about who noted the NFHS errors and contacted the NFHS first to get the errors corrected.

I was under the impression that our board, Board #6, had something to do with NFHS two rule changes. I am willing to admit that maybe I was wrong. Can we now go back to the purpose of my posts:

I was hoping that my post would generate some professional discussion about the inner workings of the NFHS. I had hoped that at least one of our Forum members was familiar with the NFHS and could explain how rule changes, like the out of bounds coach or referee being touched by a player with the ball in bounds, could go unannounced, or how a long standing rule, like the captian's line up, could dissappear unannounced.

Can some Forum members shed some light on how a national organization, with so many resources at its disposal, could make such errors.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

icallfouls and BkrBallRef seem to think this this post has turned into a contest about who noted the NFHS errors and contacted the NFHS first to get the errors corrected.

I was under the impression that our board, Board #6, had something to do with NFHS two rule changes. I am willing to admit that maybe I was wrong. Can we now go back to the purpose of my posts:

I was hoping that my post would generate some professional discussion about the inner workings of the NFHS. I had hoped that at least one of our Forum members was familiar with the NFHS and could explain how rule changes, like the out of bounds coach or referee being touched by a player with the ball in bounds, could go unannounced, or how a long standing rule, like the captian's line up, could dissappear unannounced.

Can some Forum members shed some light on how a national organization, with so many resources at its disposal, could make such errors.

Its called phasing out of little used rules that may be outdated. Perhaps you should contact the NFHS and ask to be notified of the future deletion of antiquated ideas be brought to your attention so that you can review them and see if they may still be applicable in your association.

Its just like POE's, they come and go without notice because they become less relevant over time in some cases.