Looks like I have never understood this rule correctly.

Thumbing through the casebook and came upon 4.4.1 page 23.

Are rules 4.4.1 and 4.4.6 in contradiction? 4.4.1 and the casebook say that if a player receives a pass while straddling the division line and pivots such that he lifts the foot touching the backcourt (I'm immediately thinking 3 points of contact to establish frontcourt - which is wrong!) HE IS IMMEDIATELY IN THE FRONTCOURT. If after he lifts that non-pivot foot (and never touches the frontcourt with it) but sets it back down in the same spot, he has committed a backcourt violation.

4.4.6 addresses DRIBBLING and that frontcourt FOR THE DRIBBLER is only established after "the ball and both feet" touch entirely in the frontcourt.

Not sure how many times I've incorrectly waved that one off and said "No. He has not established himself in the frontcourt yet."

I can see the reason for 4.4.1 - it is similar to how we call inbounds/out-of-bounds but it also seems contradictory to the establishment of frontcourt as defined in 4.4.6.

Any comments?

I agree!
 

I agree, I have struggled with this "contradiction" myself.

The only thing I could come up with is that "dribbling" the ball and "holding" the ball have different consequences, concerning the division line.
While "holding" the ball a player cannot have the three points...i.e. both feet and ball, be a factor as there are only two points...both feet.
While "dribbling" there is of course three points...both feet and the ball...that must be across the division line before said player has established himself in the frontcourt.
Therefore, I have to see these two plays differently as to the relationship of ball location....while "holding" the ball the ball is in frontcourt/backcourt location depending on which foot is the pivot foot Case Book 4.4.1 Ruling (b)
While "dribbling" from backcourt to froncourt, the ball is in the frontcourt when the ball and both feet of the dribbler touch the frontcourt entirely. Rule Book 4.4.6

Hopefully others on this forum will have a better explanation.

Dude

I'm suspicious that the explanation is more history than logic. If memory serves, the rule used to be that on a dribble once the ball bounced in the front court, it couldn't go back, and once a foot went into the front court it could not go back. At some point the rule was changed to the three points idea on the dribble, and I'm guessing that no change was made on the player holding the ball b/c they were just trying to solve the "problem" of a dribbler with the ball on the line. That left an inconsistency that doesn't (in my view) make any sense at all.

Fellas, the "three points" only applies to a player dribbling the ball. Hawkk and Rookie touched on the reasons why. Let's look at the 2 plays.

A1 is dribbling the ball at the division line. Both feet are in the FC but he is dribbling the ball in the BC. Without the "three points" rule, once the ball is no longer touching the floor in the BC, after it bounces, it would be a violation for the ball to bounce in the BC again.

A1 is straddling the division line while holding the ball. He hasn't established a pivot and he's still in the BC, since one foot is there. If he lifts the foot in the FC and uses the BC foot to pivot, he can place the lifted foot in either FC or BC. If he lifts the foot in the BC, he is now completely in the FC, because the only part of his body touching the floor is in the FC. If he puts the foot down in the BC or dribbles in the BC, it's a BC violation.

There is no contradiction and, as RookieDude stated, these plays are different.

Your are absolutely right that there is no "contradiction," but I believe that there is a philisophical inconsistency between the two rules -- why (and I mean "philisophically why?", not "why by rule?")do we penalize a non-dribbler for lifting the pivot foot and putting it back down in exactly the same place? Philisophically, I think that is inconsistant with the concept of the three point rule for the dribbler, for whom an exception has been carved out. I'd like to see the same philosophy adopted for the pivoting player -- a two point rule, if you will. (But I don't think it will happen because it doesn't arise enough -- we'd probably need a big televised game with a turnover in the last two minutes to draw attention to the issue and make anyone care enough to change it.)

Without the dribbler / three-points rule, some dribbles into the front-court that otherwise "looked normal" could technically be violations. Rather than make us decide, or allow coaches to yell about it, or interrupt the game, or confuse the fans, or ... the rules committee just added the exception / explanation.

Philosopically, "it makes the game better."

Contradiction
 

I hate to contradict anyone on this forum because it seems to get a lot of people excited. I'm going to state my case again.

A player dibbles down the length of the division line with one foot and the ball in the front court, and one foot in the back court. With each step along the division line the dribbler's BC foot is lifted and replaced into the BC. Per rule 4.4.6, this is okay.

A player receives a pass while straddling the division line. He lifts his BC foot and replaces it into the BC. Per rule 4.4.2, this is NOT okay.

SAME FOOTWORK; two different rules. Dibbler is okay and a pivoter is not. In my mind set this is a contradiciton. I can call it properly during a game and probably even explain it to an irrate coach. But, as hawkk labelled it, philosophically this is a contradiction.

I readily understand BBRef's point - similar to in-bounds and out-of-bounds. When the pivoter raises his BC foot he is now located in the front court.

I also understand Bob Jenkins point that without rule 4.4.6 a dribbler might be unable to change directions at the division line and still legally get the ball into the front court. [Remember the regulation girl's game of three teammates on each end of the court and no dribbling across the division line?]

I contend that rule 4.4.6 could be simply reworded to make both situations legal and remove the "philosophical" contradiction. Try this:

During ball movement from BC to FC, the ball is located in the FC when either both feet of a dribbler and the ball (three points), or both feet of a player holding the ball (two points), touch the court entirely in the FC. This, of course would allow the pivoter to not be in the front court until both feet got there.

Does anyone else find the organization of our rules a little antiquated and confusing? For Heaven's sake we still have rules that seem to reference the use of baskets - not a ring and net but a bushel basket. Rule 5.1.1 " A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above and REMAINS IN or passes through."

Re: Contradiction
 

A basket is defined as the ring, net, flange and braces collectively. What do you suggest we call it, other than the "basket" or the seemingly more modern "ring, net, flange and braces collectively"? As for 5-1-1, the ball can remain in the ring-net-flange-and-braces-collectively quite easily without breaking any rules or laws of physics.

Dribbling and holding to seperate actions. Both require different rules interpertations.
Also about the ball remaining in the basket. WHat about when you have brand new nets and the becomes lodge in the basket(Net) and does not come through!

AK ref SE

Re: Contradiction
 

We could run a nice delay at the end of games, having the entire court to work with, just by teaching our players to keep only one foot on the ground in the front court. With a little practice it shouldn't be too hard. :D

I was thinking more along the lines of older than dirt nets
that flop up & stay there but we're on the same page :)