Backcourt violation?

[BktBallRef]

I don't think BillyMac would have face quite as much opposition to some of his thoughts if his entire demeanor didn't come across as so arrogant. "We were the first..." "...Board 6 Way."

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How do you answer the player that says "Why now? I've been doing it all game". Do you respond "Yes, you were palming the other times but I didn't think that it shoulda been called then".

That's easy. "This time, it got you a clean look at the basket."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

That's easy. "This time, it got you a clean look at the basket."

Chuck, if a player ended his dribble by touching the ball with both hands, and then dribbled again, would you also not call that if there was no pressure/backcourt? And if a coach/player asked you about it, would you still say "No call. It didn't get him a clean look at the basket"?

[BillyMac]

Thanks to the following Official Forum Basketball web site members for their contributions in developing the list of the Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules that has often been posted on this Forum. Without their contributions, this list would not be as complete as it exists now.

Much thanks: bossref, Hartsy, Jurassic Referee, Camron Rust, Mark Padgett, Nevadaref, Mark Dexter, Dan ref, mdray, Jimgolf, elecref, Assignmentmaker, IREFU2, and David M.

Also, in regard to the six play situations that I posted, I was expecting answers for "real life" interscholastic games, the way some of us call things when we are officiating on a real court, with real players and coaches. For the purposes of a membership exam or a refresher exam, of course, all of these are violations, and should be answered as such.

Several months ago, Jurassic Referee suggested that the Tower Philosophy / Principle of Advantage and Disadvantage / The Intent and Purpose (Spirit) of the Rules; should not be addressed with rookie officials. On this point, I agree with Jurassic Referee and some of the other officials who have stated as such 100%.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Chuck, if a player ended his dribble by touching the ball with both hands, and then dribbled again, would you also not call that if there was no pressure/backcourt?

Nope. Call it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Nope. Call it.

Aw geeze, now you got me even more confused than usual.

A dribble ends when the ball is palmed/carried by the dribbler or the dribbler touches the ball with both hands. In both cases, if the player dribbles again, it is a violation for an illegal second dribble. But.....under similar circumstances--i.e. in the backcourt with no defensive pressure, you would let the violation go in one case but not the other.

Could you please explain to my uneducated mind just exactly what your rationale is for doing so? They are the exact same violation, by rule, aren't they? What is the difference

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Could you please explain to my uneducated mind just exactly what your rationale is for doing so?

I could. But you're not gonna like it. Three words:

"Call the obvious".

I told you that you weren't gonna like it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

I could. But you're not gonna like it. Three words:

"Call the obvious".

I told you that you weren't gonna like it.

Whoa.......it's not a matter of liking or not liking something at all. I'm here to learn, and I can't do that until I understand completely where you're coming from.

Are you saying that if you have an obvious palm/carry in the backcourt, with no defensive pressure, you would call the violation?

Could you then please explain exactly what the difference is between what is "obvious" and what is "not obvious" is when it comes to a palm/carry? I just want to know what criteria that one should use to either call the violation or ignore the violation....bearing in mind that both are violations no matter what.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Are you saying that if you have an obvious palm/carry in the backcourt, with no defensive pressure, you would call the violation?

Could you then please explain exactly what the difference is between what is "obvious" and what is "not obvious" is when it comes to a palm/carry? I just want to know what criteria that one should use to either call the violation or ignore the violation....bearing in mind that both are violations no matter what.

Please, let me...

...a palm in the back court with no defensive pressure is not obvious. The baseball guys have a term for this type of call - it's a F you call.

However, if A1 palms the ball to beat his defender on a drive to the basket...THAT'S an obvious call.

It's very simple, once you own the magic decoder ring.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Please, let me...

...a palm in the back court with no defensive pressure is not obvious. The baseball guys have a term for this type of call - it's a F you call.

However, if A1 palms the ball to beat his defender on a drive to the basket...THAT'S an obvious call.

It's very simple, once you own the magic decoder ring.

Where can I get one of those decoder rings? It's obvious that I really, really need one because I am still very confused.

If a player has the ball come to rest on his palm for....oh, to just pick a number....one second in the back court, then that's not a violation if he continues dribbling. But if a player in the front court also lets the ball come to rest for one second, then dribbles again, it is a violation. Correct?

So.......since they are the exact same violation, can I also extrapolate that it's true that if you touch the ball with both hands in the back court with no defensive pressure and then dribble again, then that isn't a violation either? But, if you touch the ball with both hands in the front court and dribble again, you do have a violation. Correct?

Please bear in mind that in both cases, the dribbler is committing the exact same act and they are both equally obvious to everyone in the gym, as well as people watching at home. The only difference is that one act occurs in the back court and the other, similar act occurs in the front court. But....one should be called and the other one shouldn't. Right?

Or is there something that I'm still not understanding here, being not too bright to begin with?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If a player has the ball come to rest on his palm for....oh, to just pick a number....one second in the back court, then that's not a violation if he continues dribbling. But if a player in the front court also lets the ball come to rest for one second, then dribbles again, it is a violation. Correct?

Incorrect. It's not about frontcourt/backcourt. It's about freezing a defender to get to the basket. You could conceivably have that palming violation in the backcourt if the dribbler does it to break the press. You can NOT have the violation in the frontcourt, if he's not trying to get around the defense. That's the "advantage" we're talking about. If it's not being used to get around a defender, then there's no advantage and no violation.

So.......since they are the exact same violation, can I also extrapolate that it's true that if you touch the ball with both hands in the back court with no defensive pressure and then dribble again, then that isn't a violation either? But, if you touch the ball with both hands in the front court and dribble again, you do have a violation. Correct?

Again, incorrect. Touching the ball with two hands is so obvious to everyone in the gym (and to the tape) that it has to be called regardless of score and/or situations. Just like the throw-in violation we discussed above.

Please bear in mind that in both cases, the dribbler is committing the exact same act

Again, incorrect. They're not the same act. In one case, two hands touch the ball. In the other case, only one hand is in contact with the ball. Clearly not the same act.

and they are both equally obvious to everyone in the gym, as well as people watching at home.

I don't know if the carry is as obvious, but I won't argue it. When the ball is touched with two hands, everyone knows the dribble has ended. But with the "normal" carry in the backcourt, everyone also knows that he's not ending his dribble. He's still bringing the ball upcourt.

If, on the other hand, there's pressure and he palms the ball and the defender bites, thinking that the dribble has ended, we have to call it b/c it allowed the dribbler to beat the defense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Lemme see if I got this right now according to your logic, Chuck...

Ending a dribble is completely different than ending a dribble. If you dribble again after ending your dribble, it is a violation......except ...... if you dribble again after ending your dribble, it is not a violation...sometimes. The key to making the right call is to ascertain where and how the first dribble ended, not whether the first dribble actually had ended(that is a given).

Palming the ball is only obvious and a violation if there is a defender within a certain number of feet- such distance known only to Chuck. Nobody else in the gym can recognize palming.

That pretty much sum up your philosophy?

Methinks you and BillyMac must go to the same camps.

[ChuckElias]

I know you're being silly, but the palming violation should be called just like a slight bump. Sometimes that bump is incidental, sometimes that same amount of contact is a foul -- depending on how it affects the bumped player.

Sometimes the palming is a violation, sometimes that same palming is incidental -- depending on how it affects the defender.

If you're smart enough to judge incidental contact, then you're smart enough to judge whether A1 gains an advantage by palming the ball. I won't venture a guess as to whether you're smart enough to judge incidental contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Please bear in mind that in both cases, the dribbler is committing the exact same act and they are both equally obvious to everyone in the gym, as well as people watching at home.

I think that you are making an assumption that is not true (more people will be watching the dribbler beating his man on offense than will be watching the player in the backcourt with no defensive pressure). I would include the covering official in this statement. For example, if there's no pressure, I'm not paying much attention to the dribbler -- I'm looking up court to see if there will be a trap, or if the offense is setting a screen that I'll need to monitor. I'm looking for the "next competitive matchup." When the dribbler is on offense, I'm looking intently at the dribbler and at the defender.

In addition, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the player in the backcourt (although I might say something to him quietly), but not to the player using the move to actually beat his man.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think that you are making an assumption that is not true (more people will be watching the dribbler beating his man on offense than will be watching the player in the backcourt with no defensive pressure). I would include the covering official in this statement. For example, if there's no pressure, I'm not paying much attention to the dribbler -- I'm looking up court to see if there will be a trap, or if the offense is setting a screen that I'll need to monitor. I'm looking for the "next competitive matchup." When the dribbler is on offense, I'm looking intently at the dribbler and at the defender.

In addition, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the player in the backcourt (although I might say something to him quietly), but not to the player using the move to actually beat his man.

I'm talking about plays where there is no doubt at all that the dribbler ended his dribble, either by palming or touching the ball with both hands, and then dribbled again. If there was any doubt at all, personally I'm not gonna call anything in the first place- no matter where it occurred.

And, to make myself totally clear(hopefully), the assumption that I'm making is that the calling official definitely sees an obvious violation, but then chooses to ignore it.

An illegal second dribble does not depend on how the first dribble ended; it depends on whether the first dribble actually did end or not.