Over and back situation

[Mark Padgett]

A1 is dribbling in her backcourt. She reaches the division line and puts one foot down in the frontcourt, then picks up her dribble. She is now straddling the line, holding the ball. She picks up the foot that is in her backcourt and then puts it down again in her backcourt.

Is this a violation, or does the "three point rule" still apply?

This came up in a summer league game and I had to explain it to both coaches. What fun.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
A1 is dribbling in her backcourt. She reaches the division line and puts one foot down in the frontcourt, then picks up her dribble. She is now straddling the line, holding the ball. She picks up the foot that is in her backcourt and then puts it down again in her backcourt.

Is this a violation, or does the "three point rule" still apply?

This came up in a summer league game and I had to explain it to both coaches. What fun.

You know I know the answer, so I'll let others try.

[cmathews]

I am going with the 3 pts rule no longer applies. The 3pts rule is only for when one of the points has remained constantly in the same status so to speak. I say you have over and back, because when the foot lifted the entire body has established front court status.......

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cmathews
The 3pts rule is only for when one of the points has remained constantly in the same status so to speak. I say you have over and back, because when the foot lifted the entire body has established front court status.......

Right answer, wrong reason. The "3 points" rule applies only to a player who is dribbling. This player is not dribbling.

[cmathews]

Ok good point. In this scenario we have the 2pt rule then correct??

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by cmathews
Ok good point. In this scenario we have the 2pt rule then correct??

Nope.

The 3-point rule (for a dribbler) says that all three points must touch entirely in the FC for the player's location to be FC.


For a player in contact with the floor, a player is where they are touching. period (if touching two areas simultaneously: BC over FC, OOB over inbounds, etc). Number of points is not a factor.

[cmathews]

Cameron,
The two points would be the foot in front court and the foot in back court, if they are both on the floor they must both be in the front court to have front court status...thus what I called the two point variation of the 3 pt rule.....when she picks up a foot she is on the 1 pt principle...

[Jurassic Referee]

References are NFHS Rule4-35-2 and Casebook Play 4.4.1.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by cmathews
thus what I called the two point variation of the 3 pt rule.....when she picks up a foot she is on the 1 pt principle...

Chris, I think you're making it a little too complicated. We don't need a two-point variation or a one-point principle. All you need to know is that the "3-point principle" only applies to the dribbler.

Anybody holding or catching the ball is treated just like a player going OOB. If you're touching inbounds and not touching at all OOB, then you're inbounds. If any part of you is touching OOB, then you're OOB. Same thing with frontcourt/backcourt.

Chuck

[cmathews]

Chuck,
I was just adding commentary. I know full well what is over and back....not trying to make it complicated, as we all know basketball rules can be complicated enough...the point is the player and or ball have to be entirely in the Front court before a front court violation occurs....entirely meaning nothing of the person or ball is in the back court..

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by cmathews
the point is the player and or ball have to be entirely in the Front court before a front court violation occurs....entirely meaning nothing of the person or ball is in the back court..

Well, then the point is not correct. Sorry

[cmathews]

The point is entirely correct. if you have two feet on the floor they must both be in the front court to establish front court status, thus 2 pts. If you only have one point on the floor it must be in the front court to establish front court status thus 1 pt. The 1 and 2 pt comments were stated with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but the fact remains the statements are true...

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Mathews, I think perhaps you've got it correct... but I'm not sure.

For this situation (foot in each court holding the ball): when the backcourt foot is raised the player now has frontcourt status. When the backcourt foot is lowered the player has now contacted the backcourt after having frontcourt status. VIOLATION.

No points rules. No tongue in cheek. Just a violation.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by cmathews
the point is the player and or ball have to be entirely in the Front court before a front court violation occurs....entirely meaning nothing of the person or ball is in the back court..

I'm not trying to pick on you, Chris, but that statement is simply not true, even assuming that you meant to write "backcourt" violation. There does not need to be player control in the frontcourt in order for a backcourt violation to occur.

A1 is in the backcourt. A1 throws a pass into the frontcourt. Trying to be cool, he puts a ton of backspin on it. It hits in the frontcourt and bounces back to him, where he is the first person to touch it. This is a violation, even tho A1 never made it out of the backcourt.

If your point is that the player and the ball must both be in the frontcourt before a backcourt violation can occur (which is sure what the above quote sounds like), then the point is not correct.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I'm not trying to pick on you, Chris, but that statement is simply not true, even assuming that you meant to write "backcourt" violation. There does not need to be player control in the frontcourt in order for a backcourt violation to occur.

A1 is in the backcourt. A1 throws a pass into the frontcourt. Trying to be cool, he puts a ton of backspin on it. It hits in the frontcourt and bounces back to him, where he is the first person to touch it. This is a violation, even tho A1 never made it out of the backcourt.

If your point is that the player and the ball must both be in the frontcourt before a backcourt violation can occur (which is sure what the above quote sounds like), then the point is not correct.

In probability theory, this is a 1 in a million play. However, cmathews, Chuck is the one who is entirely correct.