Backcourt Question

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Posting the text of the rule makes me wonder what most people think about the following two plays. Please closely examine the wording of the rule when answering.

A. Player A2, who is holding the ball in the backcourt, throws a pass towards teammate A3, who is in the front court. However, the ball strikes an official who is standing in the frontcourt and rebounds to the backcourt where A4 catches it.

B. Player A1, who has not yet dribbled, is holding the ball in the backcourt and decides to make a pass. His throws a spinning bounce pass diagonally across the court. The ball bounces once in the frontcourt, but due to the spin returns to the backcourt where it hits an official (inbounds) and rolls into the frontcourt again. A1 runs into the frontcourt and picks up the ball.

Here is my interpretation - for what it is worth

A. Violation. Team A has control. The ball obtains front court status when it hits the ref who is standing in front court. When A4 touches the ball, the ball has backcourt status again.

B. I am torn what to call here. When the passed ball bounces in front court, did you end the ten second count? If so, you are judging the ball obtained front court status and that there is no player control - meaning a dribble has not started. If the dribble has not started, the three points rule does not apply. Can A1 still legally dribble that ball? Yes, but did his dribble officially begin when he passed the ball? I think no. So the ball status between the time A1 passed the ball and the time he started dribbling a loose ball becomes important. However, if you kept the ten second count on after A1 released the ball and the ball bounced in front court, then you seem to be ruling that the released ball was the start of a dribble. Then all the issues pertaining to the location of the ball and the feet of the dribbler come into play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

Here is my interpretation - for what it is worth

A. Violation. Team A has control. The ball obtains front court status when it hits the ref who is standing in front court. When A4 touches the ball, the ball has backcourt status again.

B. I am torn what to call here. When the passed ball bounces in front court, did you end the ten second count? If so, you are judging the ball obtained front court status and that there is no player control - meaning a dribble has not started. If the dribble has not started, the three points rule does not apply. Can A1 still legally dribble that ball? Yes, but did his dribble officially begin when he passed the ball? I think no. So the ball status between the time A1 passed the ball and the time he started dribbling a loose ball becomes important. However, if you kept the ten second count on after A1 released the ball and the ball bounced in front court, then you seem to be ruling that the released ball was the start of a dribble. Then all the issues pertaining to the location of the ball and the feet of the dribbler come into play.

The question isn't whether you stopped your count, but whether or not you should stop your count.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Before I address the philosophical question, I want to just ask, I hope the word "tenants" isn't spelled that way in the rule book. I know that generally we don't discuss spelling issues here, but that one would be pretty egregious if your quotation is correct.

Edited to add: Oh, dear, I went and looked it up, and it IS spelled incorrectly. I can't even imagine insisting on "following the rules as written" when this kind of error is what's written. Nevada, wouldn't you like to modify your stance just a little, even?

Why should I modify my stance? I'm clearly a "tenant" of the rules! I live within them.

And yes that is the spelling used by the NFHS.

[Ref in PA]

Just as we can judge a ball hitting the backboard either a try or a pass and as we can judge an airball a try or not, I think we have to judge the release by A1 a pass or the start of the dribble. It is important to make that judgement in this case because that will determine the status of the ball. Rule 4-4 tells the definition of the location of the ball and 4-4-6 talks of the "three points" rule: "During a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the court entirely in the frontcourt."

Based on the original question calling the release of the ball by A1 "a pass" then I think we have to end the 10 second count and the ball changing front and back court status now has meaning. So when A1 begins dribbling, he begins dribbling ball that was previously "a loose ball", not a continuation of "a start of a dribble." So, the more I think about it, I am leaning toward calling it a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

Here is my interpretation - for what it is worth

A. Violation. Team A has control. The ball obtains front court status when it hits the ref who is standing in front court. When A4 touches the ball, the ball has backcourt status again.

Did you notice that A2 threw the pass, but A4 is the one who eventually received it?
You are applying 9-9-2 to the team, when the rule is clearly written for "a player."
Also, you can't apply 9-9-1 since no player touched the ball in the frontcourt and that is part of that rule.

So my point is that if the play is not a violation under either of those two articles, what justification is there for calling one?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

Here is my interpretation - for what it is worth

B. I am torn what to call here. When the passed ball bounces in front court, did you end the ten second count? If so, you are judging the ball obtained front court status and that there is no player control - meaning a dribble has not started. If the dribble has not started, the three points rule does not apply. Can A1 still legally dribble that ball? Yes, but did his dribble officially begin when he passed the ball? I think no. So the ball status between the time A1 passed the ball and the time he started dribbling a loose ball becomes important. However, if you kept the ten second count on after A1 released the ball and the ball bounced in front court, then you seem to be ruling that the released ball was the start of a dribble. Then all the issues pertaining to the location of the ball and the feet of the dribbler come into play.

Here I am to add a new twist!

...It's an interrupted dribble since it's not immediately under A1's control. Thus, it's a backcourt violation. (Other interrupted dribble cases treat the interruption as if there is no dribble...PC/common foul, OOB, etc.).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did you notice that A2 threw the pass, but A4 is the one who eventually received it?
You are applying 9-9-2 to the team, when the rule is clearly written for "a player."
Also, you can't apply 9-9-1 since no player touched the ball in the frontcourt and that is part of that rule.

So my point is that if the play is not a violation under either of those two articles, what justification is there for calling one?

The whole purpose of the rule require the offensive team to keep the ball in the frontcourt once they get it there unless the defensive team causes it to go into the backcourt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The whole purpose of the rule require the offensive team to keep the ball in the frontcourt once they get it there unless the defensive team causes it to go into the backcourt.

Yabut....
The rule's purpose is not to penalize the player for what amounts to an official's error (being in the way of the pass). If you have to resort to purpose of the rule here to call the violation, I think you have to pass.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yabut....
The rule's purpose is not to penalize the player for what amounts to an official's error (being in the way of the pass). If you have to resort to purpose of the rule here to call the violation, I think you have to pass.

Yabut...be careful about using this way of thinking about the play. Are you 100% sure it was the official's fault for getting in the way? Are you 100% sure the player didn't aim it at the official? If the official was standing OOB instead of the front court, would you also use the same criteria?

Now, I did find case play 4.4.4(b) that addresses this very play. And it refers to 9-9-2.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yabut...be careful about using this way of thinking about the play. Are you 100% sure it was the official's fault for getting in the way? Are you 100% sure the player didn't aim it at the official? If the official was standing OOB instead of the front court, would you also use the same criteria?

Now, I did find case play 4.4.4(b) that addresses this very play. And it refers to 9-9-2.

Good find.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here I am to add a new twist!

...It's an interrupted dribble since it's not immediately under A1's control. Thus, it's a backcourt violation. (Other interrupted dribble cases treat the interruption as if there is no dribble...PC/common foul, OOB, etc.).

It's not a twist. It's the correct interpretation(except in SillyMonkey Land).

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by crazy voyager

I don't agree, yes the ball has "hit the floor" when it hits the official. But there's never been control established in the front court (the ball striking the floor doesn't mean the team has touched the ball in the fc). Therefore no violation should be called
for a bc the follwing 3 things must happen:
1 The team is the last to touch the ball in the fc
2 The team is the first to touch it in the bc
3 The team has control of the ball at the time

And unlike the NFHS fiba has no exception regarding bc during a throw in (not from what I know anyway). The case discribed at the top is a bc under fiba rules.

Crazy,

If you read the FIBA rules on a backcourt violation, it says there must be team control, it does not necessarily say team control in the front court. This would be a violation in FIBA.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yabut...be careful about using this way of thinking about the play. Are you 100% sure it was the official's fault for getting in the way? Are you 100% sure the player didn't aim it at the official? If the official was standing OOB instead of the front court, would you also use the same criteria?

Now, I did find case play 4.4.4(b) that addresses this very play. And it refers to 9-9-2.

It's not the same, since in the play under discussion it's A4 that caught the ball, and in the case play it's A2. You can't just interpret these rules any old way you want to, Jim, you have to apply them as literally written. Sheez...

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Before I address the philosophical question, I want to just ask, I hope the word "tenants" isn't spelled that way in the rule book. I know that generally we don't discuss spelling issues here, but that one would be pretty egregious if your quotation is correct.

Why? That is the correct spelling of the word "tenants."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It's not the same, since in the play under discussion it's A4 that caught the ball, and in the case play it's A2. You can't just interpret these rules any old way you want to, Jim, you have to apply them as literally written. Sheez...

Hey, this is my game, I'm in charge you see. I will define which player is A2, and I will define which player is A4. Therefore, it's my call, it's all about me. A wise man once said, "the ref makes the call." And you know what, she was right. Now quit drinking that Kook-Aid that JR spiked....