Call the make you...... oh, wait - I'm still doing dyslexic jokes

Mark Padgett · #1 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 10:30pm

A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He gets one foot in the frontcourt and has dribbled in the frontcourt when he picks up his dribble. He is standing on one foot - the foot that is in the frontcourt. He stands there on the one foot (without his other foot having touched in the frontcourt) for a few seconds then passes the ball to A2 who is still in their backcourt.

Violation?

firedoc · #2 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 10:53pm

I believe that once he picks up his dribble and lifts the foot that was in the backcourt he has attained frontcourt status. In that case the pass to the player in his backcourt would constitute a violation.

ROMANO · #3 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 05:51am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He gets one foot in the frontcourt and has dribbled in the frontcourt when he picks up his dribble. He is standing on one foot - the foot that is in the frontcourt. He stands there on the one foot (without his other foot having touched in the frontcourt) for a few seconds then passes the ball to A2 who is still in their backcourt.

Violation?

YES!
This is a violation.when his foot touched the frontcourt (and the ball is in the player hends)it consider that the player is in the frontcourt.

dblref · #4 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 08:34pm

I'm going to disagree. The rule states ball and "both" feet have to be in the FC to have FC status. Even though he picked up his dribble, all 3 were not in FC.

Jurassic Referee · #5 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 09:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by dblref
I'm going to disagree. The rule states ball and "both" feet have to be in the FC to have FC status. Even though he picked up his dribble, all 3 were not in FC.

You might wanna read casebook play 4.4.1(a). Might change your mind.

MOFFICIAL · #6 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 09:56am

The casebook example does not apply because it references a player who received a pass not a player dribbling the basketball. I would say legal action. IMO.

mick · #7 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 10:08am

Quote:

Originally posted by MOFFICIAL
The casebook example does not apply because it references a player who received a pass not a player dribbling the basketball. I would say legal action. IMO.

"A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He gets one foot in the frontcourt and has dribbled in the frontcourt when he picks up his dribble."

MOFFICIAL,
The case cited references a player who is not dribbling.
mick

ChuckElias · #8 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 10:09am

Quote:

originally posted by Mark P
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He gets one foot in the frontcourt and has dribbled in the frontcourt when he picks up his dribble.

Quote:

Originally posted by MOFFICIAL
The casebook example does not apply because it references a player who received a pass not a player dribbling the basketball.

But notice the original play is NOT discussing a player dribbling the ball. . . Therefore, violation.

mick · #9 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 10:13am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

originally posted by Mark P
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He gets one foot in the frontcourt and has dribbled in the frontcourt when he picks up his dribble.

Quote:

Originally posted by MOFFICIAL
The casebook example does not apply because it references a player who received a pass not a player dribbling the basketball.

But notice the original play is NOT discussing a player dribbling the ball. . . Therefore, violation.

Is there an echo,echo, echo ?

ChuckElias · #10 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 10:34am

One minute?!?! One lousy stinking minute?!?! Grrrrrr!!

dblref · #11 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 07:02pm

Chuck: Looking at the times registered on my computer, Mick replied at 10:09 and you replied at 10:13. I believe that is just a tad more than "one stinkin minute". Do the Bosox consider 4 minutes to be the same as 1 minute? Inquiring minds want to know!

Mark Padgett · #12 (**permalink**) Sun May 11, 2003, 07:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by dblref
Chuck: Looking at the times registered on my computer, Mick replied at 10:09 and you replied at 10:13. I believe that is just a tad more than "one stinkin minute". Do the Bosox consider 4 minutes to be the same as 1 minute? Inquiring minds want to know!

No, no, no. You're checking the wrong posts. The times were only one minute apart, 7:08 and 7:09 (Pacific time). For a moment there, I thought you were going to accuse them of posting in metric time.

dblref · #13 (**permalink**) Mon May 12, 2003, 10:38am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

Originally posted by dblref
Chuck: Looking at the times registered on my computer, Mick replied at 10:09 and you replied at 10:13. I believe that is just a tad more than "one stinkin minute". Do the Bosox consider 4 minutes to be the same as 1 minute? Inquiring minds want to know!

No, no, no. You're checking the wrong posts. The times were only one minute apart, 7:08 and 7:09 (Pacific time). For a moment there, I thought you were going to accuse them of posting in metric time.

Interesting. I'm on EST and they showed up at the times I mentioned. Wonder why that happens? These are the times shown at the bottom of where the screen name is. For example, my post to Chuck showed up as 7:02.

Barry C. Morris · #14 (**permalink**) Mon May 12, 2003, 10:57am

Quote:

Originally posted by dblref

Interesting. I'm on EST and they showed up at the times I mentioned. Wonder why that happens? These are the times shown at the bottom of where the screen name is. For example, my post to Chuck showed up as 7:02. [/B]

Since we've all been nitpicking lately, I'll go ahead and correct you... You're on EDT, unless you're one of those crazy Hoosiers that doesn't make the leap in time. I am on EDT as well and see your post to Chuck as 7:02

ChuckElias · #15 (**permalink**) Mon May 12, 2003, 11:53am

Quote:

Originally posted by dblref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
You're checking the wrong posts. The times were only one minute apart, 7:08 and 7:09 (Pacific time).

Interesting. I'm on EST and they showed up at the times I mentioned.

Just to be clear, you're not looking in the wrong place for the time; you are looking at the wrong postings. I think you are absolutely correct that I made a post at the time you mentioned. But to see the posts that were made one lousy stinking minute apart, look at the two posts immediately before mick said "Is there an echo. . ."

Chuck