2 strange situations in the same game
 

Need some help on these. Both of these managed to happen in the same game. The game also included over 40 fouls (none were ticky tack) and I called 9 travels. You would think girls in the 8th grade would know they can't just run in place with the ball but oh well..

1) This happened right in front of my partner: Loose ball, A1 recovers laying on her back w/ her head about 6 inches off the floor but her pony tail is touching the end line. Is this OOB violation? Her hair is the only thing touching the line.

2) A1 bringing the ball up in the back court, ball is tipped and is loose. A2 recovers sitting on the division line. Her butt is on the line, one knee in the back court, both feet in the front court. She picks the ball up off the floor in the back court and passes to A3 who's in the back court. Any kind of violation? It looked weird but I held the whistle b/c I didn't really know and it happened pretty quick.

what a shock; 40 fouls in an 8th grade girls game!
in 1) OOB
in 2) nothing; both feet and the ball never reached frontcourt

1) Hair is a body part. Thus, she has out of bounds status when she recovered the ball. Violation.

2) If I am interpreting your post accuarately, A1 had back court status when it was tipped. A2 recovers and does not meet criteria for frontcourt status (both feet and ball in front court), thus no violation, legal pass to A3.


"A2 recovers sitting on the division line. Her butt is on the line, one knee in the back court, both feet in the front court."

As an aside, I'm having a hard time picturing exactly what this looks like.

8th grade girls are funny b/c they think no one will see them basically tackle a girl during a rebound. About 4 minutes after that, she thought it would be a good idea to kick a girl in the stomach so she got the boot (ha!).

Thanks for all the info on this. I appreciate it!

Three posts in a row referring to the "three points" when they don't apply to this play.

The "three points" only applies when dribbling the ball from BC to FC. Since there was no dribble in this play, A1 would have been in the FC if she was touching (or last touched) the FC and was not touching the BC.

the answers are right; the reasoning is wrong.

Why in the world would you think that? Was this the first 8th grade girls game you ever worked? :rolleyes:

You count the number of travels you call? To quote David Letterman: "This is only an exhibition. It is not a competition. Please, no wagering.

Well I called 3 in the first quarter and my partner called 2. I became curious and decided to keep track. I wasn't trying to look for them and pad my stats :D

1. Are you serious? This actually happened!!! We made fun of the NFHS when they issued a ruling on this exact play a few years ago. Here it is:
2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 9: A1 recovers a loose ball on the playing court near the sideline, with his/her body entirely in bounds. However, A1's head is hovering out of bounds and his/her hair (which is in a long ponytail) is touching the floor, out of bounds. RULING: A1 is called for the out-of-bounds violation. (7-1-1; 7-1-2; 9-3-1)


2. Since the player is touching the backcourt that player has backcourt status. Therefore, the ball still does as well and no violation has occurred.

Just want to be clear, here. "All three" (ball, left foot, right foot) do NOT have to be in front court to establish front court. "All three" ONLY applies when the ball is being dribbled. Otherwise, all that is required to establish front court is the pivot foot. According to the post, both feet were established in the front court - so I have a back court violation.

Then in that case, just to be clear, you should revisit the rules book. ;)
You are mistaken.
The position of the feet does not matter. What matters is that this player does have some part of the body touching the backcourt, so the player has backcourt status.

4-35-2 . . . When a player is touching the backcourt, out of bounds or the three-point line, the player is located in backcourt, out of bounds,or inside the three-point line, respectively.

Other body parts were touching the backcourt in the OP.

So then, if the player were to pick up one foot and leave the pivot foot in the front court, then touch the raised foot into the back court - you're not going to call back court?

Not while the player's backside is firmly planted on the floor in the backcourt. :)

What does the action which you describe have to do with the play under discussion? :confused:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.


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

:(

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. :eek:

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.

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?

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. :)

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).

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

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.

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.

Pivot cheek?

Don't get me started. ;)

This thread says it all.

Wow - and I was kidding. I'd hate to see how that coach describes the related jump stop rule.

How about: 4-44-2 . . . A player, who catches the ball while moving or dribbling, may stop,
and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. If both feet are off the floor and the player lands:
1. Simultaneously on both feet, either foot may be the pivot.
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch is the pivot.
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on
both. Neither foot can be a pivot in this case.
b. If one foot is on the floor:
1. It is the pivot when the other foot touches in a step.
2. The player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both.
Neither foot can be a pivot in this case.

Sorry, having trouble posting...just a test