|
Backcourt violation?
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? |
Quote:
The second one is easy for the reason you said. It isn't an out-of-bounds on a player for touching an out-of-bounds player so it would seem logical that it would apply to B/C as well. The second is is tougher, but I don't see where the rulebook says that an official who is straddling the H/C line is in B/C. An official isn't a player so I don't think player location applies. |
The official is part of the court...so if they step on my frontcourt foot, that's part of the frontcourt. No b/c call there...now, depending on how heavy the player is and how good a stomp they get on my little piggies, I might just go ahead and blow the whistle really loud right in their ear just to pay them back, but that would be an inadvertant whistle and they'd get the ball back...
|
I'm not penalizing a kid because I'm stupid enough to be out of position.
|
not to sound like an a$$ but this probably will come off as such. how do you or the people you know come up with these I mean really talk about absurd. Out of curiosity why is said official breathing down the players neck where when he pivots he hits his foot? instead of penalizing any team I think this ref should be hit with a T and flogged by rosie o'donnel
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=rockyroad]The official is part of the court...QUOTE]
Which court is the official part of...if the official landed stadling the line, did he lift his backcourt foot...or maybe his frontcourt foot...or maybe he was dribbling at the time, in which case we should determine whether all three points entered the frontcourt...of course he could have come from OB, which further complicates things...:) |
I have played in a game, it was decided simply. With 6 seconds left we threw a long pass to do a fast break. THe official steps in the way, gets the ball on him and it goes OOB. Other teams ball, we lose by one.
Officals can surley be out of position :p |
[QUOTE=Kajun Ref N Texas]
Quote:
Budump-bump ching!! |
[QUOTE=rockyroad]
Quote:
Wait a minute..... The rule only references things that touch the floor. Seven feet in the air doesn't count. Nevermind..... |
Quote:
|
So the consensus is that both situations are legal? Even tho the person is touching in the backcourt in both cases? If the ref is part of the floor, and is touching the backcourt, doesn't that make him in the backcourt? I just want to have some good rationale before I go back to the class with an answer.
|
Quote:
When I finally catch up to you I'm gonna stick one of those walker legs up your...er...hmm...in your case would it be <b>down</B> your... Oh, never mind. |
Quote:
Your rationale is <i>"What Would Woddy Do?"</i> or..... The player's foot touched the part of the official located in the front court. Using the exact same logic, if he hadda stepped on the backcourt foot, the player woulda stepped in the backcourt. Foot touching in the frontcourt = frontcourt; foot touching in the backcourt = backcourt. |
Quote:
|
Remember, if we're playing official schoolyard rules, that "Electricity" applies here.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
NFHS Unannounced Changes
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. |
Quote:
|
Hoping For Professional Discussion
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. |
Quote:
Does your interpreter, Peter Palermino, also still advocate calling BI using advantage/disadvantage also? Iow, if <b>you</b> 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 <b>all</b> violations anyway. |
NFHS Intent And Purpose Of The Rules
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. |
Quote:
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. :D |
Quote:
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
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. :D All hail CCB6 |
NFHS Errors
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. |
Quote:
Its just like POE's, they come and go without notice because they become less relevant over time in some cases. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Board 6 teaches their officials that you only call violations when <b>you</b> think it should be a violation.....and that applies to <b>ALL</b> violations. A player travels; a Board 6 member has to decide whether to call it or not. A player with the ball steps OOB; a Board 6 member has to decide whether to call it or not. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera for <b>ALL</b> violations! Well....good luck to you and Board 6, Billy. Imo, that's just completely freaking ridiculous...... and kinda sad too,. But whatinthehell do I know anyway? I'm not a Board 6 member. Btw, Billy, if you're gonna post your <b>Most Misunderstood Rules</B> again, would you please attribute the names of all of the officials who corrected <b>your</b> misunderstanding of those rules when you first posted them, and then helped re-write those misunderstood rules for you? You should give credit where credit is due, you know. |
Quote:
|
Let me be sure I understand this thread. The NFHS has changed a couple of things, for reasons we're not sure of, without announcing the changes. One of them is whether a player standing inbounds but touching someone besides a player oob -- whether that player is oob. It looks as though the change was in the case play, not the rule book? It might have just been a clarification? The other item that got changed without announcement was the deletion of the "line-up check" from the rule book?
So we're arguing about this in order to assert (a) WHO provoked these changes, or (b) WHO noticed them first, or (c) WHO is or is not right about whether the NFHS is wrong sometimes when they decide to change something that one of you may or may not have gbeen the first to notify of who noticed the changes first.... Y'all have way, way too much time on your hands. You should have spent the afternoon transcribing T.O.'s paranoid rantings for those of our readers who can't read lips. |
Quote:
As for "TO," if I gave a fat rat's butt about him, then you could definitely say that I have too much time on my hands. He's an idiot, of the first order. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
<b>CASEBOOK PLAY 9.2.5 SITUATION:</b> <i>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. <b>RULING:</b> A violation in <b>both</b> (a) and (b). <b>COMMENT:</b> Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertant, it is a violation and <b>no</b> judgment is required in making the call.</i> Iow BillyMac has stated above that <i>"members of Board #6 have been taught to use the intent and purpose of the rules and the principles of advantage and disadvantage"</i> to make a call that is completely opposite to the way that the NFHS rulesmakers have very plainly <b>written</b> what the intent and purpose of the rule is and exactly how the play should be called. Now....one of those parties <b>has</b> 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?" |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well, I started this thread and it has somehow morphed into something very different from what I asked about. In any case, let me say a couple things.
1) Pete Palermino is an excellent official at the D1 level. He's also a very humble person, never bragging about his accomplishments. Most of you will never know him, obviously, but if you get the chance, he's worth listening to. 2) I've been instructed at camps by more than one D1 official (working in conferences that I'd like to be in) to call the throw-in violation, regardless of pressure and/or score. Why? Video. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
2) I don't know if Pete really does advocate BillyMac's description of the Board 6 way. I would not presume to speak for him, particularly on an intenet forum. 3) I would not agree that ALL violations should be judged on advantage/disadvantage. (For example, line violations such as OOB.) 4) I would agree that SOME violations should be judged on advantage/disadvantage. (For example, palming/carrying.) |
Quote:
(3)- You and I agree on that one. (4) You and I probably agree on that one, even though we don't agree on some of the details. Personally I think that you gotta be consistent in calling palming/carrying all over the court, and I guess that the FED must kinda agree also, having made it a POE in the past. 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". Now....3-seconds....10-seconds for a free thrower...maybe a fisted ball...fine. <b>All</b> violations---> never imo. Another point......I really don't think that you can <b>teach</b> official how to use this type of judgment. I think that it has to be <b>learned</b> through experience, and some officials never will learn it.... no matter what. Jmo. |
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." :(
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Credit For Most Misunderstood Rules Edits, Etc.
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%. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A dribble ends when the ball is palmed/carried by the dribbler <b>or</b> the dribbler touches the ball with both hands. In <b>both</b> 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 <b>are</b> the exact same violation, by rule, aren't they? What <b>is</b> the difference :confused: |
Quote:
"Call the obvious". I told you that you weren't gonna like it. |
Quote:
Are you saying that if you have an <b>obvious</b> palm/carry in the backcourt, with <b>no</b> defensive pressure, you <b>would</b> call the violation? Could you then please explain exactly what the difference is between what is <b>"obvious"</b> and what is <b>"not obvious"</b> 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 <b>both</b> are violations no matter what. |
Quote:
...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. |
Quote:
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 <b>exact</b> 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 <b>both</b> cases, the dribbler is committing the <b>exact</b> same act and they are both <b>equally</b> 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? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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 <b>where</b> and <b>how</b> the first dribble ended, not <b>whether</b> the first dribble actually <b>had</b> 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.:) |
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. :D |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
And, to make myself totally clear(hopefully), the assumption that I'm making is that the calling official <b>definitely</b> sees an <b>obvious</b> violation, but then chooses to ignore it. An illegal second dribble does not depend on <b>how</b> the first dribble ended; it depends on whether the first dribble actually did end or not. |
I know it's obvious, but there isn't going to be any consensus reached on a philosophical question like this one.
For me, in a high school game, I'm probably going to call an obvious palm, even if the dribbler isn't being defended. At the JC level, I'm not. |
Since Dan brought in the baseball reference, I'll throw in a football one...sweep play to left side...runner is already 5 yards downfield and on the left sideline. Right tackle is holding the defensive end 15 yards away from the play. White Hat does not throw flag...was it a hold? Yep...did it have any impact on the play or the game? Nope...
Isn't that the same idea being used here on these violations...understand I am not voting for or against this philosophy, just pointing out that it is used in all sports, not just basketball... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24pm. |