Over and Back by stepping out of "bounds"

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Sideline YES. Division line, how can you have a BC violation if the ball never went to the BC? I don't have my rulebook with me, but does the section covering BC even reference "dribbler"? I suspect it doesn't....

The ball doesn't have to go into the BC to have a BC violation. If the ball has FC status and the player in player control of the ball steps into the BC, it's a violation.

Originally Posted by kbilla

"An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble." 4.15.5

In the OP I would argue that it didn't "get away" from the dribbler, she intentionally left it there, therefore her dribble continues...

It makes no difference whether an interrupted dribble is intentional or accidental. It's simply a loss of player control.

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm confused -- where's the violation?

Bpb,
THis is why I posted this situation, I didn't think it was a violation in regards to backcourt or anything else but I wanted to put it to the acid test of this forum. I had a similar thing happen 2 weeks ago, team blue has front court status and then an interrupted dribble results in the ball rolling towards the half court line, a blue player runs up and reaches down and rolls the ball back into frontcourt, as he is making this "saving" roll he jumps across the halfcourt line but is clearly not touching the ball when he crosses the line, I did not call backcourt even though some of the fans were screaming overandback.

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle

Bpb,
THis is why I posted this situation, I didn't think it was a violation in regards to backcourt or anything else but I wanted to put it to the acid test of this forum. I had a similar thing happen 2 weeks ago, team blue has front court status and then an interrupted dribble results in the ball rolling towards the half court line, a blue player runs up and reaches down and rolls the ball back into frontcourt, as he is making this "saving" roll he jumps across the halfcourt line but is clearly not touching the ball when he crosses the line, I did not call backcourt even though some of the fans were screaming overandback.

Are you sure they weren't saying "over the back"
Besides 3 seconds (on a throw-in mind you) that's one of their favorites.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

My advice is this play is not a violation BECAUSE if you cannot explain it do NOT call it.

MTD, Sr.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

My advice is this play is not a violation BECAUSE if you cannot explain it do NOT call it.

MTD, Sr.

Thank you Mark....We are all scratching our heads and I think this is the most logical thing said of any of us!

[bob jenkins]

1) I'm NOT sure the ruling depends on whether this is an interrupted dribble. Without the note in 9-3-1, it wouldn't be an OOB situation -- and there's no similar note in 9-9.

If you don't buy that, then:

2) I seem to recall a case play (or interp) to the effect that "A1 chases a loose ball (yeah -- I know that's not a term) near the sideline. A1 grabs the ball and tosses it back on the court. A1's momentum carries him/her OOB. A1 returns inbounds and grabs the ball, then begins a dribble. Ruling: Double Dribble (yeah ...). A1's first toss to the court was the start of a dribble."

So, if the toss was intentional and the start of a dribble, why wasn't it an OOB violation on A1 (under 9-3-1 NOTE)? Because it was an interrupted dribble. So, an interrupted dribble can be "intentional".

(Edit to add: Found the case play. See 7.1.1.D)

(Edit to add: Damn. NevadaRef found it before I could.)

If you don't buy that, then:

3) See MTD's comment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

My advice is this play is not a violation BECAUSE if you cannot explain it do NOT call it. MTD, Sr.

I can explain it, if it's a normal, "controlled" dribble:
NFHS Rule 3-1-Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

I can explain it if it's an interrupted dribble:
NFHS Rule 4-15-6-d: During an interrupted dribble out of bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the iinterrupted dribble.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle

Last night Varsity Girls game, I'm watching from the stands, A1 is dribbling in her front court and gets too close to the halfcourt line, she realizes that her momentum is going to carry her across the halfcourt line thus commiting a backcourt violation so before she leaves her front court she pushes the ball with one hand, basically still dribbling, so that the ball stays in front court yet she takes 2 steps in the back court and then catches up to the ball in front court and continues to dribble, ref calls over and back. Reminded me of picture in one of the case books where a guy is dribbling along the boundary line and he steps out of bounds yet the ball stays in bounds, and then he comes back in bounds still dribbling the ball, viloation! For me as a ref, it sometimes helps me to think of back court as out of bounds for the team that has established the ball in their front court. (I know there are times when players can legally enter the backcourt) A question I have from what I saw last night though is, can team players that have established front court move across the half court line trying to shake a defender? I'm talking about trying to get open to receive a pass. Of course they have to get back onto front court to get the ball.

It's one of the myths of basketball that the backcourt rule is just the same as the out-of-bounds rule (maybe adding that there is a delayed violation if the ball hits the backcourt coming from the FC).

It's not. It's perfectly legal to play in the backcourt. Players have to pay attention not to carry the ball in the BC after it has gained FC status (in FIBA the rule is slightly different, but the principle is the same): which is not the same as the ball going out of bounds.

And I believe that in NF the described play would be classified as an interrupted dribble, hence it would have been legal also to go out of bounds and reestablishing in-bounds status before touching the ball again, if I'm not mistaken.

Ciao

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

It's one of the myths of basketball that the backcourt rule is just the same as the out-of-bounds rule (maybe adding that there is a delayed violation if the ball hits the backcourt coming from the FC).

It's not. It's perfectly legal to play in the backcourt. Players have to pay attention not to carry the ball in the BC after it has gained FC status (in FIBA the rule is slightly different, but the principle is the same): which is not the same as the ball going out of bounds.

And I believe that in NF the described play would be classified as an interrupted dribble, hence it would have been legal also to go out of bounds and reestablishing in-bounds status before touching the ball again, if I'm not mistaken.

Ciao

Would this be an interuppted dribble though if she just decided to not dribble the ball as she went out of bounds and then re-established? What is the difference between this and just running along the sideline, stepping out of bounds each time you push the ball to the floor, but back inbounds each time you are in contact with the ball? I would have a violation in the case described in the OP if it was on the sideline...