Backcourt violation?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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".

Bill - without getting into the "Board 6" debate, where do you draw the line between these two plays? I fall into the category of saying both plays are a violation, by rule. How do you explain to a coach why play 1 is a violation, but play 2 isn't, considering it's the same line, same foot, same inch? If you teach that play 2 is not a violation, at what point does it become one? What if it's a 10-point game instead of a 20-point game? What if it's a 20-game late in the third quarter instead of the fourth? What if there are 2 defenders in the backcourt? And so on...

Granted, realistically, I probably won't see the violation in play 2, because my focus won't be on the throw-in player like it would be in a close game with pressure. And if I was asked why the violation wasn't called, I would say it was because I didn't see it, not because I did see it and decided not to call it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Bill - without getting into the "Board 6" debate, where do you draw the line between these two plays? I fall into the category of saying both plays are a violation, by rule.

M, the NFHS rulesmakers have been very definitive on this specific play.

CASEBOOK PLAY 9.2.5 SITUATION:
Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.
RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertant, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

Iow BillyMac has stated above that "members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules and the principles of advantage and disadvantage" to make a call that is completely opposite to the way that the NFHS rulesmakers have very plainly written what the intent and purpose of the rule is and exactly how the play should be called. Now....one of those parties has to be wrong. And, when in doubt, I think that I'll choose the Case Book over the Board #6 Way.

Btw, for the life of me, I just can't imagine newer officials trying to apply these advantage/disadvantage concepts on violations when they're still trying to figure out whether something is or isn't a violation in the first place. Can you imagine the thought process for a newbie?- "Whoa, that looks like it might be a palm. Now....should I call it or not?"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

M, the NFHS rulesmakers have been very definitive on this specific play.

I know. In almost all instances you can never go wrong by applying a rule as written. But there is a part of me that does agree with their thinking, although I would probably not draw the line the same place they do. I've given my example in the past on a summer camp game where one of the teams is a school for the deaf, and they are down by 30 or 40 late in the second half. One of their subs happens to get fouled, and misses everything on the first attempt. On the second shot, she clearly steps/falls over the line on the attempt, and it happens to go in. I was C, and had coverage on the shooter. Something in me said to ignore the obvious violation and let it go. The player was happy she made the shot, both coaches smiled, and after the game the clinicians said they were glad I didn't blow it dead. Obvious violation, but it did fall somewhat into an advantage/disadvantage situation. Would I ignore it in a regular game? Absolutely not. But somehow it felt right in that particular situation.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, for the life of me, I just can't imagine newer officials trying to apply these advantage/disadvantage concepts on violations when they're still trying to figure out whether something is or isn't a violation in the first place. Can you imagine the thought process for a newbie?- "Whoa, that looks like it might be a palm. Now....should I call it or not?"

I agree with you here as well. When you're learning, you can never go wrong with following the rules. We also know we don't want to be "Rule Book Ronnies", and we don't go looking for the proverbial "snot at the end of someone's nose". So that's why I asked Bill where their association draws the advantage/disadvantage line in this teaching this play. I'm trying to find out where that line is, that is, if the line exists at all. Maybe it's just something that comes with experience.

[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%.