Good question. According to ncaa AR 79 this is a dribble. I don't see why it wouldn't be a dribble for the purposes of the BC rule.

Same as nfhs 4.15.4.c btw

Does Socrates answer his own questions?

For the record, I don't believe that either of the two plays which I posted are backcourt violations according to the rules as written. For this argument it is very important that people make the distinction between backcourt violations due to article 1 and those due to article 2. You can't mix parts of each and come up with a violation.

It is clear that 9-9-1 cannot be used to justify a backcourt violation in either case as no player from the offensive team touched the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. That article very clearly states that this is required.

So if either of these cases were to be violations 9-9-2 would have to be the provision being broken. However, that article has two clauses in it that have particular bearing on these plays.
The first is that it states "... a player shall not ..." Thus the article is written as a prohibition on a single player, not against a team. It does not contain the word teammate at all. The team article is 9-9-1.
So I wrote the first case to have the ball return to a teammate of the passer, not the passer himself. Strictly that does not break 9-9-2.
The second clause of importance is "in the backcourt." Tony has correctly pointed out that the touching does NOT need to occur "in the backcourt" for a violation under 9-9-1, but for situations governed by 9-9-2, this certainly is a requirement. Thus the second play was carefully crafted to have the original passer retouch the ball in the FRONTCOURT instead of the backcourt. So again, the exact wording of the text has not been infringed.

The dribble defintion is something that I only briefly considered, and is why I wrote that the player had not previously dribbled.

I'm now wondering if 4-4-6 and it's interpretations have made it nearly impossible for a violation to be committed under 9-9-2. The only situation that I can think of is a player throwing the ball from his own backcourt off the backboard in his frontcourt and having it return to him untouched. That would be a violation because 4-4-5 says that this action is not a dribble.

For example, if a player is standing still in his backcourt a few feet from the division line and tosses the ball with backspin into the frontcourt where it bounces and returns untouched to the player who has not moved would that be a dribble and thus the ball never attained frontcourt status per 4-4-5 or would that be a violation of 9-9-2?

Wrong as usual.

Well, Tony, you're the backcourt guru, but not even you can deny what is there in black and white.

One can't use the 4 points summary for these plays because that really is attempting to subject these plays to what's in 9-9-1, and I've clearly made the case that that isn't appropriate as the ball was not touched in the frontcourt.

So if you still believe that my opinion is mistaken, then please explain why. I seriously and nonsarcastically await your wisdom.

PS Don't provide a case play in which the offensive team does touch the ball in the frontcourt.

Agree of course, but Good Lord, please don't argue it with him. We'll get another of his 10,000 word eye-glazing sleep-inducing confusing rules soliloquys, trying to prove that white is black and east is west. Again.

Let silly monkeys lay iow.

<i>Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit!</i>

True, I must admitt I didn't think so far (I stared myself blind at the 3 points, wich I now think should be changed slightly).

These criterias I've been taught in regards to fiba rules, I'm not sure about other rules set but I belive the ncaa have somewhat diffrent thinking regarding bc violations (not sure about fed). But yes for most other rulesets this would probably not be completly right (and as it turned out, they're not exactly right for fiba either, but then again these are 3 points to make it easier for officials to learn what is a bc and what's not, they're not the rulebook).

That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.

The danger with using the four-point system is that one may try apply it when it is inappropriate to do so.
For example, the second point has been phrased as, "The player or a teammate was the last to touch the ball before it went to the backcourt." This criterion could be met without the player or teammate ever touching the ball in the frontcourt as is clearly required by 9-9-1. Thus the checklist would give a false positive.

The same could be said for the wording of the third point with regard to the backcourt and article 9-9-2.

A lot of things could be said about many things. I'm sure you'll contribute your fair share on this topic and if you keep going along these lines most of them will be wrong. You are once more using your faulty interpretation of the wording to mislead yourself (and others) as to the intent of the rule. IOW this discusison is just so much bullsh1t.

What is interesting to me though is that in your play A1 in the BC has in fact dribbled by rule when he passes the ball and it bounces back to him off the official standing in the FC. So the 3 points while dribbling guideline applies and A1 has not committed a BC violation in this play.

Anyone disagree with this?

I disagree that the "actual text" is always correct. We have case plays that "clarify" the wording -- and are inconsistent with it. In general (or at least frequently), the case play overrides the text. We also have the "must understand the intent of the rules" guidleins, which implies that the literal reading of the rules is not always correct.

I concur that the actions of A1 do indeed meet the definition of a dribble and back in post #33 I asked which rule takes priority: 4-4-6 or 9-9-2.
I have no reason for picking one rule over the other.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
That is exactly the point which I am striving to make with these two plays. For NFHS and NCAA, we have this nice four-point checklist, but it is not a true substitute for the text of the rule. When one wants to really get the facts, one must go to the actual text.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Obviously, I don't agree with that position, bob. I do not deny that there are some case plays which are inconsistent with the rules. I simply take the position that those case plays are wrong and that the people who wrote them did a poor job of interpreting the text. They eventually should be overturned. It is my opinion that the actual text always carries more weight than some play ruling because that's what the RULE is.

This is the way constitutional law works. ;)

You do realize, don't you Nevada, that the NFHS rules aren't necessarily based on a constitutional system? You are just getting way too anal about all this, imo.

I though that, in this country, constitutional law works whatever way the President wants it to depending on his mood that day. At least, that's what it seems like lately. :eek:

Ok, I'm jumping in a long way from the beginning of this conversation, but I would've thought NFHS case plays are no different than court rulings in law. The actual court rulings determine the "spirit and intent" of the written law, and in a lot of cases, expand upon it. Isn't it usually the case that the law is poorly written, and the court cases give guidance on how the law is to be interpreted? How many times do attorneys cite specific cases, rather than the actual law? Isn't this the reason for the NFHS case plays - to expand and explain the intent of the rule? If the Fed. decides they want a different interpretation, they will change the case play accordingly. Therefore, I would conclude case plays take precedence over any possibly unclear wording in the rule itself.