Over and Back by stepping out of "bounds"
 

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.

If I understand the play correctly I have nothing on this.... I think.

I dont see why not, but as a defender I wouldn't follow the offense back there. Seems as though the defender should wait at the division line while the offensive player is "shaking" in the backcourt.

Absolutely they can....

Good point, why bother playing defense there?

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

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

Good point Bob, I didn't read the details in the post, just sort of skipped to the question....can't apply the OOB rules to the BC in this case, the BC rule only says that a player can't be the first to touch the ball in the BC if it was caused to go to the BC by his/her teammate...doesn't say anything about a dribble.....in this case the ball never went into the BC, therefore how can you have a violation?

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...

I've got no violation here...

I'm wondering why the guard did not grab the ball and head to the cup while said offensive player was doing the two-step into the BC....that's what I would have done.....:confused:

Wait a minute, let me go back and read it again:

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.

So if the dribbler (in the frontcourt) steps on the division line... that's not a BC violation??

If the dribbler steps on the sideline... that's not an OOB violation??

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....

It all depends on whether you cosider the dribble "interrupted" or not.

If it is an interrupted dribble, it is no violation as the ball never gains BC status.

If not an interrupted dribble, it is a violation because the ball gains BC status when the dribbler steps in the BC, even if they're not touching the ball at the moment they touch the BC...if the player in the BC is in control of the ball, the ball is in the BC. The ball doesn't have to touch in BC to gain BC status....either the player or the ball can give the ball BC status.

I know this is true for OOB, but is it also true for BC? I didn't think that it was...anybody have the case play?

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.

Have I really been officiating this play incorrectly all this time? Or do you have a misunderstanding of 4-4-1... that is the question.

BTW, how I interpreted the OP there was no interupted dribble, everything was done purposely

I am trying to envision the caseplay that covers this play on the sideline and makes it a violation..I actually don't believe that I have ever seen the play described in the OP in 14 years....when would A1 have time to leave the ball, go BC, and then return and continue the dribble without B1,2,3,4,5 going the other way with it?

Dont have a case play, but the backcourt consists of the entire division line. Meaning, if you step on it then you have backcourt status... just like OOB.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure they will) :D

The more I think about this, this does have to be a violation....otherwise you could have the same play I described in a prior post where a dribbler runs along the division line, stepping on the line after pushing the ball to the floor each time, then re-establishing in the FC before contacting the ball again...absent an interuppted dribble which I agree there does not appear to be in the OP, this is a violation...sorry Ch1town, this is what I get for trying to post while talking to the phone company!

It's all good, just want to make sure that we are all making the correct call in those situations. Because whenever the dribbler is in the frontcourt & they b a r e l y touch the division line, well, I gotta violation.

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

So you are saying even tho dribbling player's feet went into BC and then came back into FC, not touching the ball during this time of BC....because of no interrupted dribble, this is still a controlled dribble thus a BC violation....interesting...

As Cam Rust says....I think the determining factor here is does the official deem it an interrupted dribble or not.

So that begs me to ask....What's the written rule read on interrupted dribble...whats the written definition? (I'll take a Vet's explanation too) Does it have to be touched by the opposing team, can a mishandled crossover dribble that the dribble regains control of constititue interrupted...what the rule book say?

"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...

I believe the book says yes, again, per 4-15-5

Ch1town....I think you are bustin' my chops....;)

Yes, IMO they are OOB, but once restablished inbound, they can get the ball...weather or not they can resume dribble depends on what happened before that action that put them OOB...I'm trying to think if I worded this or am thinking this thru logically...(gotta see it!)

So I think we are all working towards the grand question...Was this an interrupted dribble or no? ;)

Yep.

SECTION 15 DRIBBLE
ART. 5 . . . 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.

The language of the rule is consitent with the dribbler inadvertently losing control of the ball. It is not an intentional act. A player that pushes the ball to the floor is either dribbling or passing....although it still could become an interrupted dribble if that player then can't get to the ball after pushing it to the floor.

It also doesn't require the involvement of any other player. If another player is involved, the dribble ends when touched by the other player and then it is merely a matter of who touches where/when....the ball stays in the FC unless the ball actualy touches the BC or a player who is in the BC.

I don't think there is anywhere this is really spelled out but the "Question" in the rules regarding a dribbler stepping OOB surely implies that, as far as court location goes, a dribbler is considered to be effectively "touching" the ball at all times.

I am confused. Which, doesn't take much considering this is my first season... ;)

The ball does not have to contact the backcourt for a violation to occur, however if any part of the player while in possession of the ball contacts the backcourt... then yes... it is a backcourt violation.

Right...?

Is that the thread's argument ?

Thanks,
Paul

Ignore my comments made as I argued with AT&T for 45 mins, look at the subsequent posts...

Not even... just trying to make sure we have it right.


9-3-1 NOTE

What if the official deemed the one handed "push", of the ball, a pass...instead of a dribble?;)

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.

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

the case play you are asking for is the one where the dribbler makes a move around a defender and dribbles the ball around ol cement feet while the ball handler goes around the other side which is out of bounds and picks up his dribbler while ol cement feet is still wondering what the heck just happened. this is an oob violation. same for this backcourt play -- its a violation.

Most of the replies keep talking about an interrupted dribble ... when I first read the OP I first though of this being a pass and ended up being a pass to herself ... right?

That would make it a violation, forget the over and back.

The way the OP read was it was an intentional act ... an interrupted dribble is not done on purpose.

Refresher Exam Question 57
 

2007 IAABO Refresher Exam, Question 57: While dribbling in the frontcourt, near the division line, A1 steps on the division line. Official rules this a backcourt violation even though he/she is not touching the ball. Is the official correct? Yes (Rule9-9-1)

Could the time lapsed between dribbles have anything to do with this OP scenario?

This is a really good debate we have going...

how is this a good debate? we are arguing whether its a violation because the ball is *not* touching the offensive player.....

Look how many people we have stirred up on this one! Why does it have to be arguing....I gave that up for 2008...this is a debate! :p

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have a violation if it's not a continious dribble....

Can anyone YOUTUBE this play so we can see the damn thing! :rolleyes:

Please show me in the rule book where it says an interrupted dribble in an unintentional act.

BTW, for the newbies, you would be wise to ignore most anything deecee writes.

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!

Therefore, she is momentarily not in control of the ball. The situation in the OP is definitely an interrupted dribble and thus not a violation. As the rule says, "There is no player control" at the time. Contact with the ball doesn't matter. A dribbler most definitely can be in control when the hand is not in physical contact with the ball, but that is just during the normal bounce.

In summary, if a dribbler steps on the division line (after being fully in the fc) or a boundary line this is a violation even if the dribbler is not in physical contact with the ball at the time. However, a player may touch the division line or a boundary line during an interrupted dribble without violating. The call hinges on the concept of player control.

Casebook play for reference:

7.1.1 SITUATION D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds; (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Illegal in (c) as the controlled toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble, dribbling a second time after picking up the ball is an illegal dribble violation. (4-15-5; 4-15-6d; 4-35; 9-5)

Nope. That's a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. It's not an OOB violation. Not even close to the same.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

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.

I Can Explain That In One Rule
 

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.

This is the correct call here: a double dribble?

Wouldn't this be the same concept has the OP?

Yes it is correct...dribble was started, stopped (via the catching), then dribbled again.

In the OP, there never was a stopped dribble/catching of the ball...it was interrupted by her motion of going back into the BC but never did the dribble come to an end.

Johnny Ringo, still waiting on that rule reference that says an interrupted dribble is an unintentional act. :rolleyes:

Methinks you are going to be waiting longer than a Duke student outside Cameron Indoor before a UNC game! :D

While I don't think you'll get a direct reference, it is at least implied in the interruped dribble rule itself.....the ball doesn't get a way from the dribbler on purpose (unless it comes alive!!!) An interrupted dribble is not when a player choses not to dribble the ball, it's when they can't dribble the ball.

I don't see anything in the rule that implies it.