Backcourt violation rule change? (over and back)

[HL Clippenchain]

NFHS--Yesterday, we had a girl dribbling up the sideline in the backcourt. A couple of feet before she gets to half-court, she jump stops, then pivots so that one foot crosses the half-court line. So she still has 1-2 points in the backcourt (as she's pivoting, the ball may have crossed or it may not have--I was paying more attention to the pivot foot and the action around the ball handler as she was being trapped).

As the ball handler pivots back to being completely in the back court (all 3 points), B's coach goes nuts and wants an over-and-back call.

I wasn't even thinking backcourt violation because the ballhandler maintained at least one point in the backcourt.

B's coach is saying there was a rule change this year that the ballhandler didn't have to have all 3 points over.

I just checked the Federation site and looked at the rules changes for 2007-2008 and I don't see anything close to that.

Did I miss something?

[Zoochy]

The only thing that was missing was the coach's brain.
Did he look like a scarecrow?
Was he from Kansas?

[Nevadaref]

You made the right call, but for the wrong reason.
Once the player picks up the ball and ceases to be a dribbler, the three points principle no longer applies. That rule is only for a player who is dribbling the ball. BTW it has not changed.

The relevant rules for this play are the ones governing ball and player location. The player location rule is 4-35. Articles 1 and 2 state that if the player is touching the floor in the backcourt, then that player is in the backcourt. When this is combined with 4-4-1, the appropriate ball location rule, it becomes clear that the ball and player remained in the backcourt during the entire play. Therefore, no violation of 9-9, the backcourt rule, could have taken place.

PS The 10-second count should continue.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by HL Clippenchain

NFHS--Yesterday, we had a girl dribbling up the sideline in the backcourt. A couple of feet before she gets to half-court, she jump stops, then pivots so that one foot crosses the half-court line. So she still has 1-2 points in the backcourt (as she's pivoting, the ball may have crossed or it may not have--I was paying more attention to the pivot foot and the action around the ball handler as she was being trapped).

As the ball handler pivots back to being completely in the back court (all 3 points), B's coach goes nuts and wants an over-and-back call.

I wasn't even thinking backcourt violation because the ballhandler maintained at least one point in the backcourt.

B's coach is saying there was a rule change this year that the ballhandler didn't have to have all 3 points over.

I just checked the Federation site and looked at the rules changes for 2007-2008 and I don't see anything close to that.

Did I miss something?

Yes, you listened to a coach.

[ranjo]

If the player jump-stopped by picking up her dribble, jumping off one foot and landing on two, and then pivots - I have a travel.

[HL Clippenchain]

Originally Posted by ranjo

If the player jump-stopped by picking up her dribble, jumping off one foot and landing on two, and then pivots - I have a travel.

Thanks for responding. The jump stop was fine, though, and the pivot was fine. The only issue at hand is the backcourt situation.

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by HL Clippenchain

Thanks for responding. The jump stop was fine, though, and the pivot was fine. The only issue at hand is the backcourt situation.

No, if she jump stopped and pivoted it is a travel. It is not fine.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scooby

No, if she jump stopped and pivoted it is a travel. It is not fine.

As always, your statement depends on the definition of "jump stop". If she jumped, caught the ball (ending her dribble) and landed on two feet -- one type of jump stop -- and then pivoted, that's perfectly legal.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by ranjo

If the player jump-stopped by picking up her dribble, jumping off one foot and landing on two, and then pivots - I have a travel.

That's what i have if I understand this correctly.

[ranjo]

Originally Posted by Scooby

No, if she jump stopped and pivoted it is a travel. It is not fine.

See casebook play 4.44.2 SITUATION A

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Scooby

No, if she jump stopped and pivoted it is a travel. It is not fine.

And where do I find this "jump stop" definition in the rule book?

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As always, your statement depends on the definition of "jump stop". If she jumped, caught the ball (ending her dribble) and landed on two feet -- one type of jump stop -- and then pivoted, that's perfectly legal.

A jump stop is defined by the rule book, it is not my definition or yours. If you mean something else, other than a jump stop, use another term. That is like says it depends on what you mean by a dribble.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scooby

A jump stop is defined by the rule book, it is not my definition or yours. If you mean something else, other than a jump stop, use another term. That is like says it depends on what you mean by a dribble.

I could be wrong but I do not think the term "jump stop" even appears in the fed book.

Take a look at fed 4-44-2, note the difference between a1 and b2.

Look at ncaa 4-44 for a much clearer version.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Scooby

A jump stop is defined by the rule book, it is not my definition or yours. If you mean something else, other than a jump stop, use another term. That is like says it depends on what you mean by a dribble.

Then over the back is "defined by" the rule book also. It's when B1 jumps out of his circle of verticallity and pushes A1 from behind.

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

PS The 10-second count should continue.

Maybe we start a closely guarded count...