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

[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.