Backcourt violation - 3 second violation

[Shades of Gray]

I have been a lurker on the board for a couple of years now and find the dicussions interesting. I coached youth leagues for years and done some reffing for youth leagues also. I sometimes discuss rules with THE WORLD'S LEADING AUTHORITY (just ask him, he is a frequent poster on this forum) and admit I have learned a lot since doing so.

TWLA (see above) informed me that if a player catches a pass from the backcourt while straddling the half court line, then makes a pivot using his foot in the front court as the pivot foot, but sets his other foot down in the back court where it was when the pass was received, this is a violation, as once the foot in the backcourt is lifted it is deemed to be in the front court. I tend to believe he is correct, since he is TWLA, but this seems to me to be a bad rule, since this would be a legal play otherwise.

On a subsequent discussion TWLA advised that an offensive player in the front court with one foot in the lane and one foot out of the lane would still be called for a 3 second violation even if he lifts the foot in the lane, but does not put it back down outside the lane.

This seems to be in conflict with the backcourt principle in the example above. Can anyone explain the rationale to me on this? Thanks.

[Freddy]

I know I discuss lots of rules with lots of people. By chance, am I the "TWLA" to which you're referring?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I know I discuss lots of rules with lots of people. By chance, am I the "TWLA" to which you're referring?

I seriously doubt it. The OP wrote "frequent poster."

You only have 69 posts right now.

PS TWLA is correct about both situations.

[Art N]

Shades of Gray,

Regarding backcourt issues, I think it makes it easier to understand (in most cases) if you think of the backcourt as "out of bounds" once the frontcourt has been established. Let me explain...
For example, if the player has one foot IB and the other raised above OOB, he is ok until he puts the foot down OOB.
If a player steps on an end line, he is OOB, if he steps on the mid-court line (once in the front court) then he is in the backcourt.

One that is confusing for coaches/parents is when the def. player (B1) bats a ball from the dribbling off. player (A1) and hits the off. players leg and goes into the backcourt, and team A player is the first to touch the ball, it is a back court violation. If B had hit the ball off A and it went out of bounds, you would expect it to be B's ball.

[Shades of Gray]

Freddy,

No, you are a couple of thousand posts short and a couple of thousand miles away from me and TWLA.

Thanks for the replies but I am still having trouble trying to understand why this should be a backcourt violation in the example I described. As I stated earlier, I don't doubt TWLA, Nevada Ref, etc.'s statements that under the rules this is a violation, but I can't see why it should be. For example, if the player did not lift his non-pivot foot but merely dragged it, this would not be a violation, correct? So why should it be a violation for merely picking the foot up and setting it back down? Also if the player is dribbling the ball while staddling the line, the foot in the back court can be picked up and put down, right?

Maybe I should just go with "That's the rule, live with it", but I would like to hear some logical explanation of why the rule is written the way it is. Thanks.

[Art N]

You can check out some prior posts on this subject. It's a popular one.

When dribbling the ball from the backcourt (BC), the player needs to get both feet AND the ball into the frontcourt (FC) before FC status can be established. So, as long as one of those three are in the BC, then the player is in the BC (10 sec. count continues, too).

I.E. He can dribble the ball in the FC and back to the BC if he keeps at least one foot back there.
It is a good technique to draw a trap early when you come across half court near the sideline. The def. coach will want two of his players to "box in" the dribbler with the sideline and midcourt line (MC) to trap him. Dribbler "shows" the ball over MC while keeping one foot in BC...trap comes, he pulls ball back and goes around them...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Shades of Gray

Maybe I should just go with "That's the rule, live with it", but I would like to hear some logical explanation of why the rule is written the way it is.

Unfortunately that's the way the NFHS works sometimes. Even our most esteemed, knowledgeable, and reliable Forum members can't agree on all interpretations, and this is not a rare occurrence. If you want a logical explanation of a rule, ask Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. It may take him a while to go up into his attic, but not only will he find you the explanation, he'll tell you why he, and Dr. Naismith, wrote the rule the way they did. Really.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Shades of Gray

Freddy,

No, you are a couple of thousand posts short and a couple of thousand miles away from me and TWLA.

Thanks for the replies but I am still having trouble trying to understand why this should be a backcourt violation in the example I described. As I stated earlier, I don't doubt TWLA, Nevada Ref, etc.'s statements that under the rules this is a violation, but I can't see why it should be. For example, if the player did not lift his non-pivot foot but merely dragged it, this would not be a violation, correct? So why should it be a violation for merely picking the foot up and setting it back down? Also if the player is dribbling the ball while staddling the line, the foot in the back court can be picked up and put down, right?

Maybe I should just go with "That's the rule, live with it", but I would like to hear some logical explanation of why the rule is written the way it is. Thanks.

The official NFHS rulings contain the explanations.

9.7.2 SITUATION:

A1 is standing with one foot inside and the other outside the
three-second restricted area. A1 lifts the foot from the restricted area and returns
it there without touching it first to the nonrestricted area. RULING: Violation. This
action does not terminate the three-second count. The count goes on since
merely lifting the foot from the restricted space is interpreted as an attempt to
evade the rule and avoid its purpose. However, there is no three-second count
during rebounding action or during a throw-in. The count on a player in the
restricted area is suspended when that player begins a try for goal.

4.4.1 SITUATION:

As Team A is advancing the ball from its backcourt toward
its frontcourt, A1 passes the ball to A2. A2 catches the ball while both feet are on
the floor – with one foot on either side of the division line. In this situation, either
foot may be the pivot foot. (a) A2 lifts the foot which is in the backcourt and then
puts it back on the floor in the backcourt; or (b) A2 lifts the foot which is in the
frontcourt, pivots and puts it on the floor in the backcourt. RULING: In (a), it is a
backcourt violation. When A2, while holding the ball, lifts the foot which was in
the backcourt, the ball is now in the frontcourt. When A2’s foot then touches in
the backcourt, it is a violation. In (b), when A2 lifts the foot which is in the frontcourt
and places it down in the backcourt, the location of the ball has not
changed. The ball is still in the backcourt and no violation has occurred. (4-35-2)

The second one depends heavily on the definitions of ball and player location.

[just another ref]

I have an explanation, in layman's terms, for the difference in the two violations.
The two violations are apples and oranges. For a player in control of the ball, the backcourt, after ten seconds, is a restricted area. Not only do you have a limited time in this area, once you leave this area, you may not return. The lane is not a restricted area, but rather a limited access area. One of the limits, along with the time, is that you must totally vacate the area before re-entry.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Shades of Gray

........once the foot in the backcourt is lifted it is deemed to be in the front court.

Not sure exactly what was said and what was inferred, but there is no question of where one foot is deemed to be. In the matter of player location, 4-35-1 tells us: "The location of a player......is determined by where the player is touching the floor....."

If a player without the ball or a player holding the ball has something touching the frontcourt and nothing touching the backcourt, that player is located in the frontcourt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Shades of Gray

Thanks for the replies but I am still having trouble trying to understand why this should be a backcourt violation in the example I described.

I'm sure that you agree / know that if a player is in the FC holding the ball and then touches the BC, that it's a violation. (Right?)

So, your play:

Player holds ball straddling division line -- Player and ball are in BC (when a player is touching both BC and FC, the player is in BC).

Player lifts BC foot -- player and ball are now in FC (the "three points" rule applies only to a dribbler -- not to a player holding the ball; if a player is only touching the FC, s/he's in the FC).

Player places foot on floor in BC -- player and ball are in BC.

So, it's a violation.

Note that if the player "drags" his / her BC foot (as you ask), that the second step above hasn't happened -- the player has remained in the BC.



So, it's a violation.

[cdoug]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm sure that you agree / know that if a player is in the FC holding the ball and then touches the BC, that it's a violation. (Right?)

So, your play:

Player holds ball straddling division line -- Player and ball are in BC (when a player is touching both BC and FC, the player is in BC).

Player lifts BC foot -- player and ball are now in FC (the "three points" rule applies only to a dribbler -- not to a player holding the ball; if a player is only touching the FC, s/he's in the FC).

Player places foot on floor in BC -- player and ball are in BC.

So, it's a violation.

Note that if the player "drags" his / her BC foot (as you ask), that the second step above hasn't happened -- the player has remained in the BC.



So, it's a violation.

I don't mean to hijack the thread but read Bob's response and was wondering...

If A1 is in the backcourt and makes a sudden turn to go along the division line so that they're in the front court with their feet but in the back court with their dribble what's the call? I assume that the BC count would continue since the ball hasn't touched the FC yet. Am I right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdoug

I don't mean to hijack the thread but read Bob's response and was wondering...

If A1 is in the backcourt and makes a sudden turn to go along the division line so that they're in the front court with their feet but in the back court with their dribble what's the call? I assume that the BC count would continue since the ball hasn't touched the FC yet. Am I right?

THe player is dribbling, so the "three points rule" applies. Have all three points touched the FC? (that's rhetorical). So, what is the ball location?(ditto) If the ball is in the BC, do you continue your count? (ditto)

[IREFU2]

As far as backcourt, remember all three point need to be in the front court, which means the ball and both feet!!!!!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

THe player is dribbling, so the "three points rule" applies. Have all three points touched the FC? (that's rhetorical). So, what is the ball location?(ditto) If the ball is in the BC, do you continue your count? (ditto)

Oooh, I like the new socratic Bob!

Also, if Bob's asking questions, and questions aren't right or wrong, then is Bob always right?

Unless they're the right questions....