OK, the second reason for the "division line" is....

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The original intent of the rule, which was to make it easier for the defense to steal the ball, is perfectly in line with the three situations that you have listed.

In all three situations, the offense gets punished, but the defense does not.

The rule was put in to increase the likelihood of a turnover and that is exactly what happens in all three of the cases that you have cited.

Well, if we truly wanted to reward the defense and create turnovers, why not say if the defense can cause the ball to go into the back court it is a violation? If the defense completely deflects a pass into the back court (requiring better defensive position in the passing lane), the offense is NOT punished since they are allowed to retrieve the ball without penalty. If, however, the defense is barely able to get a finger on the pass (not requiring as good of a defensive position) near the division line, but not enough to push the ball into the back court, the offensive player is punished if he touches the ball in the front court (ever so slightly) while moving into the back court. These two situations are in conflict, in my opinion, with your thought that the intent is to create more turnovers.

Secondly, I disagree that the intent was solely to create more turnovers. I wasn't around in 1933 during the discussion on stalling, but I think that they were attempting to create more offense in the game. In the case of teams quickly bringing the ball up the court, then making a pass near the division line that results in a player never actually getting the ball over the division line (jumping from the front court, but receiving the ball four feet in the back court) does not seem to mean that original intent. I still do not believe that the intent of the rule was to penalize a team that is fully attempting to advance the ball up the court -- in some cases very quickly -- in the case of the catch in the air while coming from the front court and landing in the back court. Once again, if you are looking to create turnovers, why not say if you catch the ball on a jump stop with one foot on each side of the line, it is a turnover (i.e. catch the ball with any part of your body in the front court and the ball is in the front court, if you are also standing with part of your body in the back court it is a violation -- similar to the case of the pivot into the back court at the division line).

In the case of throw-ins from underneath the attacking team's basket, the throw-in can be made into the back court. Once again, if you want to be create turnovers, why not make this a violation (I believe this is a violation in at least one other league in the US)?

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Well, if we truly wanted to reward the defense and create turnovers, why not say if the defense can cause the ball to go into the back court it is a violation?

The defense bats ball into the backcourt and attempts to go get it. Whistle, deadball, no lay-up for the defense, defense (now offense, gets ball for sideline throw-in).
OR
Defenses stop trying to gain possession and start hitting/swing at the ball, after all what good is tip if it doesn't go in to the BC. Results harder fouls as part of the game, and the introduction of volleyball tactics to basketball.

How are those two "why nots"?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

The defense bats ball into the backcourt and attempts to go get it. Whistle, deadball, no lay-up for the defense, defense (now offense, gets ball for sideline throw-in).
OR
Defenses stop trying to gain possession and start hitting/swing at the ball, after all what good is tip if it doesn't go in to the BC. Results harder fouls as part of the game, and the introduction of volleyball tactics to basketball.

How are those two "why nots"?

SamIAm,
To clarify, IF the offense touches the ball in the back court after the ball has been tipped into the back court, it would be a back court violation. This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket. If the offense touches the ball first, it is a violation. No need for your second scenario to occur as the situation can already occur today when the ball is simply sent into the back court by the offense without a defensive tip. Now, any other "why nots?" (damn punctuations)....

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

SamIAm,
To clarify, IF the offense touches the ball in the back court after the ball has been tipped into the back court, it would be a back court violation. This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket. If the offense touches the ball first, it is a violation. No need for your second scenario to occur as the situation can already occur today when the ball is simply sent into the back court by the offense without a defensive tip. Now, any other "why nots?" (damn punctuations)....

The rule you proposed included "why not say if the defense can cause the ball to go into the back court it is a violation?". I understand the limitations we have here to communicate, but that is what you wrote.

This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket. No they can't, the official judged the ball to be in the BC, it is a violation per your suggestion.

You didn't address rougher defense. No other why not's needed until you address that. However, I will provide two anyway. 1) Ball inbounded near the division line would put IB team at a new dis-advantage (Post T inbounds play for example). 2) Passes from A1 with a question of BC/FC status is batted into A's backcourt. Where was A1 FC or BC? Important as batted pass into backcourt = violation. Same problems with different judgement.

[Mark Padgett]

Dr. Naismith told me that the reason the division line is there is because his brother-in-law, Jethro, was the painter who put down the lines on the first gym and he got paid by the line. When Jethro retired, they no longer painted the center line until 1933 when Jethro's grandson took over the business.

OK, who's hiding my meds?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

The rule you proposed included "why not say if the defense can cause the ball to go into the back court it is a violation?". I understand the limitations we have here to communicate, but that is what you wrote.

This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket. No they can't, the official judged the ball to be in the BC, it is a violation per your suggestion.

You didn't address rougher defense. No other why not's needed until you address that. However, I will provide two anyway. 1) Ball inbounded near the division line would put IB team at a new dis-advantage (Post T inbounds play for example). 2) Passes from A1 with a question of BC/FC status is batted into A's backcourt. Where was A1 FC or BC? Important as batted pass into backcourt = violation. Same problems with different judgement.

SamIAm,
Once again, I CLARIFIED my original statement -- please ignore the initial statement and use the clarified proposal (Which I don't agree with by the way, but I am taking the approach of "the purpose of the division line is to create more turnovers" as proposed earlier).

To make it clearer for you, here is the text: "why not say if the defense can cause the ball to go into the back court AND THE OFFENSIVE TEAM IS THE FIRST TO TOUCH THE BALL IN THE BACK COURT it is a violation?".

Therefore, This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket.

Your example of the throw-in once again is INVALID using the CLARIFIED statement. Why would defense be any rougher than it is today? If the ball goes into the back court, the defense can ALWAYS play the ball as they do under the current rules. None of this "volleyball" argument is going to happen since the defense CAN get the ball and attack the basket.

The throw-in at the beginning of the quarter and for a technical foul could be taken 1" BEHIND the division line meaning that the pass could go into the back court legally on the throw-in. Once again, the "batted pass" into the back court is not automatically a violation.

Once again, I do not support this position. I merely suggest that if someone is truly insisting that the purpose of the division line is to allow the defense to create more turnovers (a fact with which I disagree), then why not expand the turnovers to be more consistent?

I don't have a problem rewarding good defense -- my teams were always one of the best defensive teams in the league. At the same time, these nitpicky rules/exceptions to the rules surrounding the division line have taken on a mind of their own. I maintain that we have lost the original purpose of trying to make holding the ball without any action more difficult into a series of situations that most referees do not know -- much less the coaches, the players and the spectators.

Seldom a game goes by in which one of these back court violations doesn't rear its ugly head. If we don't make the call, 95% of the coaches don't think we have missed a thing. We still call it because it is a rule AND there is the possibility that the opposing coach may be in the 5% who do know the rule.