Over & Back?

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's just the definition of "ball location" that needs to be changed. The officials would just need to learn to "count" longer.

Or another: A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2, also in the backcourt. The pass is a bounce pass with spin (or a reach around pass) that bounces in the front court. How can the definition of "ball location" be changed to make it so that a ball that bounces in the frontcourt is not in the frontcourt?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that makes sense.

So are you of the opinion that the following plays should not be violations?:

1-While Team A is advancing the ball from their backcourt, A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2, who jumps from the frontcourt, catches the ball and lands in the backcourt.

2-While Team A is advancing the ball from their backcourt, A1, in the backcourt, passes to A2 who is standing with 1 foot in the frontcourt and the other foot off the floor. A2 places his foot on the floor in the backcourt.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts and what you think is fair.

Also, it seems that a team is restricted by one of these two things while they are in team control: a) not being able to go back into the backcourt; or b) having a 10 second backcourt count. My opinion is that when you make a change to the backcourt rule (exceptions excluded because they don't involve team control), then you probably must make a corresponding change to the 10 second rule to enable the count to be continued. I think this might make for some very confusing verbiage, but I might be wrong.

1. Correct. Current rules, even though the ball never crossed the division line, a backcourt violation has been committed. I maintain that this was not the intent of the original "over and back" (term***) rule.

2. Correct.

These situations occur frequently during games -- especially when a team is running a trapping press of some kind. I maintain that these situations were never the intent of this rule. Just because the defense causes the attacking team to be in close proximity of the division line should not cause violations until the ball and the player is in the front court.

These situations are still difficult for the commoners (spectators) to grasp. Most coaches understand this rule as do most officials.

Of course, I still think that the "last touch first touch" back court violations are the worst in this group. Requiring PLAYER CONTROL in the front court to establish front court status would eliminate these calls. ZERO percent of commoners (spectators) understand this rule and virtually none of the uncommoners (coaches) understand it.

EVERY SINGLE TIME I make this call, I (or one of my partners) must explain the call to the offending team's coach. If it is NOT called, virtually NO COACH will complain (until the rule is changed, I still will).

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Of course, I still think that the "last touch first touch" back court violations are the worst in this group. Requiring PLAYER CONTROL in the front court to establish front court status would eliminate these calls. ZERO percent of commoners (spectators) understand this rule and virtually none of the uncommoners (coaches) understand it.

EVERY SINGLE TIME I make this call, I (or one of my partners) must explain the call to the offending team's coach. If it is NOT called, virtually NO COACH will complain (until the rule is changed, I still will).

A1 is dribbling in the front court near the division line with no defenders nearby. A1 dribbles ball off of his leg and the ball rolls away (interrupted dribble). Ball rolls into backcourt where A1 picks it up. No violation as there was no player control until A1 went into the backcourt and picked it up.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Cobra

A1 is dribbling in the front court near the division line with no defenders nearby. A1 dribbles ball off of his leg and the ball rolls away (interrupted dribble). Ball rolls into backcourt where A1 picks it up. No violation as there was no player control until A1 went into the backcourt and picked it up.

Cobra,
Assuming that A1 has both feet and the ball in the front court, if the ball rolls into the back court AND IS TOUCHED by Team A without the defender touching the ball, this would still be a backcourt violation since the ball was in player control in the front court and was not touched by the defense and WAS TOUCHED in the backcourt by A1.

The purposes of my changes for the backcourt violations are to eliminate the exceptions to the rules for throw-ins, the termination of those exceptions (ball being tipped), etc. ALONG WITH elimination of the last-touch-first-touch backcourt violation call.

I know many disagree with me on this, but I get back to the purpose of the division line -- to prevent a team from being able to hold the ball for a long period of time by using the entire court. It was NOT to prevent a team was retrieving a pass deflected by the defense.

The inconsistency in this rule grinds on me. If the defender just barely tips a pass causing the offensive player to misplay the pass into the backcourt, it is a violation if is it touched first by the offensive team. Yet, if the pass is nearly intercepted by the defender resulting in the ball going directly into the backcourt, the offense can retrieve the ball without penalty. It seems to me that in order to be consistent, any time the defense can cause the ball to go into the backcourt, it should be a violation if touched first by the offense.

All of this goes away if the rule stated that IF the ball is touched by the defense, the division line effectively disappears until the offensive team regains player control. If the ball would go into the backcourt, a new 10 count would start since the offensive team would still have team control.