BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Nevadaref]

Just so that we don't lose sight of the crux of the debate in this thread, here are two plays in which an official needs to know if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" and thus would be granted "the defensive exception" to the backcourt violation.

1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Just so that we don't lose sight of the crux of the debate in this thread, here are two plays in which an official needs to know if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" and thus would be granted "the defensive exception" to the backcourt violation.

1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

The crux of the debate on play #1 was settled when the new case play was issued. Play #2 was always straightforward.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

I wrote this play many posts ago to test when we should consider someone to be a defensive player.

JR seems to be saying that if there is no team control, then there is no defense. Is that your stance, JR?

If so, in the above play as soon as A1 releases the try for goal team control ends and you wouldn't consider B1 who blocks the shot a defensive player, right?
(I happen to disagree as B1 is clearly undertaking a defensive action by striving to block the shot.)

If that is the case, then you obviously wouldn't consider any of the shotblocker's teammates to be defensive players as they attempted to track down the ball. Thus you wouldn't grant B2 an exception to the backcourt violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I wrote this play many posts ago to test when we should consider someone to be a defensive player.

JR seems to be saying that if there is no team control, then there is no defense. Is that your stance, JR?

If so, in the above play as soon as A1 releases the try for goal team control ends and you wouldn't consider B1 who blocks the shot a defensive player, right?
(I happen to disagree as B1 is clearly undertaking a defensive action by striving to block the shot.)

If that is the case, then you obviously wouldn't consider any of the shotblocker's teammates to be defensive players as they attempted to track down the ball. Thus you wouldn't grant B2 an exception to the backcourt violation.

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is NO offense or defense. Because the exemptions that apply in rule 9-9-23 are only for defensive players, throw-ins and jump balls, they are NOT applicable in the case described above. That's why it's a violation.

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your confreres can cite some rules why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is NO offense or defense. Because the exemptions that apply in rule 9-9-23 are only for defensive players, throw-ins and jump balls, they are NOT applicable in the case described above. That's why it's a violation.

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your confreres can cite some rules why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.

Since you want to cite rules, your first sentence is WRONG!
You know better too. Team and player control don't end "as soon as B1 blocked the ball," instead they both end when the ball is in flight after being released by A1 on the try. That's what it says in 4-12-3(a).

Now as for the real debate, yes, I am basing my argument on it being possible, but not necessary, for there to be defensive players when neither team has team control. You are basing yours on the belief that there cannot be defensive players unless one team has team control. We disagree.

BTW you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider B1, the shotblocker, a defensive player after A1 releases the try for goal.
There is no team control at this time, but he certainly looks like he's playing defense to me.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since you want to cite rules, your first sentence is WRONG!
You know better too. Team and player control don't end "as soon as B1 blocked the ball," instead they both end when the ball is in flight after being released by A1 on the try. That's what it says in 4-12-3(a).

Now as for the real debate, yes, I am basing my argument on it being possible, but not necessary, for there to be defensive players when neither team has team control. You are basing yours on the belief that there cannot be defensive players unless one team has team control. We disagree.

BTW you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider B1, the shotblocker, a defensive player after A1 releases the try for goal.
There is no team control at this time, but he certainly looks like he's playing defense to me.

OK. Now what difference does that make anyway re: the final call? It really don't make no nevermind when player and team control ended. The only fact needed to make the final call that is relevant is that player and team control did end.

Cite some rules to back up your argument that a violation does not occur on the play you posted.

If there is no player or team control, there are NO defenders until someone re-establishes player and team control. Is that statement plain enough for you.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As soon as B1 blocked the ball, the shot ended, and as well player and team control by team A also ended at the same time. During the rebound, the ball is not in player or team control of either team. If you think differently, read case book play 4.12.2. Iow, until someone re-establishes player and team control, there is NO offense or defense.

...

You're basing your premises on there being defensive players when neither team has player or team control. Cool! Why can't both teams all be defensive then? That's just as logical as what you're trying to say.

If you or any of your confreres can cite some rules why that isn't a violation, please feel free to do so. Rules....not something written on a tablet and brought down from the mount by Nevadaref.

You want citations, here are citations:

Rules Fundamental #7: The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense...

Explain me that! How can the defense commit goaltending at all if there is no defense after the shot is released????


Rule 4-23...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Are you saying you can't "guard" the team with the ball during a throwin? Are you saying that since you can't guard, you can't have LGP, and therefore the non-throwing team simply can't ever have a postion which would allow them to draw a charging foul (not a PC, just a common charging foul) against the throwing team? Are you saying that the team without the ball must continue to get out of the throwing team's way until someone catches the ball?

Rule 8-4-a During a free throw....Marked lane spaces may be occupied by a maximum of four defensive and two offensive players.

After the FT is released, is it still during a FT? If so, those players are still offensive and defensive players. Or are you saying they must magically evaporate from the lane between the release and when the FT ends since only 4 defensive and 2 offensive players are allowed to be there?

Even if it is not explicity spelled out in the book, these three citations demonstrate that a team can be considered to be on defense even when the other team doesn't have team control.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rules Fundamental #7: The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense...

Explain me that! How can the defense commit goaltending at all if there is no defense after the shot is released????

All right Camron! I busted my butt looking for something, ANYTHING, no matter how obscure which made this point. This is undeniable proof that the bookwriters do at some point consider defense to still be defense when there is no team control by the opponent.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You want citations, here are citations:

Rules Fundamental #7: The only infractions for which points are awarded are goaltending by the defense...

Explain me that! How can the defense commit goaltending at all if there is no defense after the shot is released????


Rule 4-23...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Are you saying you can't "guard" the team with the ball during a throwin? Are you saying that since you can't guard, you can't have LGP, and therefore the non-throwing team simply can't ever have a postion which would allow them to draw a charging foul (not a PC, just a common charging foul) against the throwing team? Are you saying that the team without the ball must continue to get out of the throwing team's way until someone catches the ball?

Rule 8-4-a During a free throw....Marked lane spaces may be occupied by a maximum of four defensive and two offensive players.

After the FT is released, is it still during a FT? If so, those players are still offensive and defensive players. Or are you saying they must magically evaporate from the lane between the release and when the FT ends since only 4 defensive and 2 offensive players are allowed to be there?

Even if it is not explicity spelled out in the book, these three citations demonstrate that a team can be considered to be on defense even when the other team doesn't have team control.

and

I especially like Fundamental #7. That conclusively proves that there can be a defensive player during a time of no team control. Very nice point.