2 strange situations in the same game

[ditttoo]

Situation described points out that the establishment of front court status depends on the pivot foot being established in the front court and nothing to do with the backside of the player being in the back court. BOTH feet were in the front court so one must surely be the pivot foot; pivot foot in the front court so front court status is established.

Replies were referencing "three points" in determining front/back court status - since the referenced play did not involve a dribble, the point is that "three points" (ball, right foot, left foot) applies only in situations involving a dribble, which the referenced play did not.

In my last post, the point is that it is the pivot foot, and nothing else, which establishes front court/back court status when there is no active dribble.

[Adam]

If the player gains possession of the ball while sitting down, this player does NOT have a pivot foot.

And pivot foot in the front court does not necessarily mean front court status. There is an exception that could have the pivot foot in the front court and the player with back court status.

[ditttoo]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If the player gains possession of the ball while sitting down, this player does NOT have a pivot foot.

And pivot foot in the front court does not necessarily mean front court status. There is an exception that could have the pivot foot in the front court and the player with back court status.

With both feet on the floor, one MUST be considered the pivot foot (that's why the jump stop does not allow a player to initiate a dribble under certain circumstances). With both feet on the floor in the front court, and without a dribble, you have front court status is the point. I know of no exceptions; interesting play situation which I hope I don't encounter; I've got a back court violation and would not want to explain to the coach (or anyone else) that there is no violation due to the fact that even with both feet in the front court the ball was hanging over the back court and/or the backside of the player was still in the back court.

[Adam]

And there's no way in hell I'm going to explain to an assigner that I called a backcourt violation when the player caught the ball with backcourt location, never moved, and then proceeded to do nothing before my whistle.

I don't care what the coach thinks.

Let me ask another question.

A1 catches the ball while sitting on the floor. Both feet come off the floor for a brief moment, but the player never moves other than that. You calling a travel?

There is no pivot while on the floor.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ditttoo

Situation described points out that the establishment of front court status depends on the pivot foot being established in the front court and nothing to do with the backside of the player being in the back court. BOTH feet were in the front court so one must surely be the pivot foot; pivot foot in the front court so front court status is established.

Replies were referencing "three points" in determining front/back court status - since the referenced play did not involve a dribble, the point is that "three points" (ball, right foot, left foot) applies only in situations involving a dribble, which the referenced play did not.

In my last post, the point is that it is the pivot foot, and nothing else, which establishes front court/back court status when there is no active dribble.

I don't know where you got that method, but it is not correct. It may work in the vast majority of circumstances, but since it is not the rule, it will not work for all situations.
Two situations for which your "rule of pivot" doesn't work are:
1. the player is not standing
2. a player catches the ball while airborne and while his action is covered by one of the three exceptions, so he is permitted to make a normal landing without respect for which foot comes down first. If the first foot comes down in the frontcourt and the second in the backcourt, the player's pivot foot is the one in the front court, but he has backcourt status per the rules.
If he lifts his foot in the fc, the pivot, and puts it back down in the fc, he has travelled.
Now you can continue to do it your way, if you wish and it is easier for you, but you will be wrong in a few cases and you should know that. Or you can change and call it by the real rule. That's up to you.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=ditttoo]With both feet on the floor, one MUST be considered the pivot foot (that's why the jump stop does not allow a player to initiate a dribble under certain circumstances). [/quote[]

Sure -- one of the feet is the pivot foot (for argument's ake). That affects the travelling rule (to travel is to move the pivot in excess of prescribed limits). It has nothing to do with the bc rule.

With both feet on the floor in the front court, and without a dribble, you have front court status is the point. I know of no exceptions; .

No you don't, and yes you do -- you've just been reading one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ditttoo

I've got a back court violation and would not want to explain to the coach...
...the backside of the player was still in the back court.

I don't want to be put in the position to have an upset coach complaining to me about why my partner called a backcourt violation when the backside of his player was clearly in the backcourt.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ditttoo

With both feet on the floor, one MUST be considered the pivot foot (that's why the jump stop does not allow a player to initiate a dribble under certain circumstances).

Nope. The only time that one of two feet on the floor MUST be considered to be the pivot foot prior to one actually being established by movement is when a player jumps into the and then starts a dribble. That's in the case book.

Also, a player can ALWAYS initiate a dribble after a jumpstop, unless the player previously dribbled. The jumpstop and the dribble rules are not connected in any way.

[Nevadaref]

It just occurred to me that you might be a FIBA ref and the rules might well be different where you are.

So are you going by NFHS, NCAA, or FIBA rules?

[ditttoo]

NOW the light bulb goes on.

Simple question - IF the player in question were to begin a dribble and dribbles in the front court (with both feet in the front court) and continues to dribble such that the dribble goes into the back court (with both feet still on the floor in the front court but their backside still in the back court) what would you now call?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ditttoo

NOW the light bulb goes on.

Simple question - IF the player in question were to begin a dribble and dribbles in the front court (with both feet in the front court) and continues to dribble such that the dribble goes into the back court (with both feet still on the floor in the front court but their backside still in the back court) what would you now call?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!! As long as that player's rear end is touching the floor in the backcourt and that doesn't change, that player's location cannot change.

That is a plainly as I can put it for you.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ditttoo

NOW the light bulb goes on.

Simple question - IF the player in question were to begin a dribble and dribbles in the front court (with both feet in the front court) and continues to dribble such that the dribble goes into the back court (with both feet still on the floor in the front court but their backside still in the back court) what would you now call?

Nothing. The "intent" of the rule assumes that the player is on his/her feet (as happens 99.9995% of the time when dribbling from BC to FC).

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by ditttoo

NOW the light bulb goes on.

Simple question - IF the player in question were to begin a dribble and dribbles in the front court (with both feet in the front court) and continues to dribble such that the dribble goes into the back court (with both feet still on the floor in the front court but their backside still in the back court) what would you now call?

How can anyone dribble from anywhere to anywhere with their backside on the floor???

Oh, you mean the backside in the air hanging over the division line? That's not a violation. No backcourt status until a body part touches the floor on the division line or in the bc.

[mkiogima]

I don't think ditttoo understands that the OP has the girl literally sitting down on the floor with her backside directly on top of the line, touching both BC and FC with both feet laying on the floor in the frontcourt.

Am I the only one getting that impression?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mkiogima

I don't think ditttoo understands that the OP has the girl literally sitting down on the floor with her backside directly on top of the line, touching both BC and FC with both feet laying on the floor in the frontcourt.

Am I the only one getting that impression?

Yes, you're the only one. Ditto stated explicitly that it doesn't matter where her a$$ is because ditto has determined her pivot foot was in the front court; and ditto has determined from reading the rule book that the location of the pivot foot determines whether she is in the front or back court.

Ditto is wrong.