Latest Version Of The Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules ...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by potato

I know my pictures are not as great as a video, but i also described the scenario beside the picture.

I know when you determine the ball has rested, that is why i mentioned the player was not palming or holding the ball in the 1st step. So would it be considered that he only ended the dribble on the 2nd step?

It could also be sometime between picture 1 and picture 2 and might depend on whether both feet were on the floor during the transition between pics 1 and 2, or whether both feet were in the air, etc.

It does seem to point out whay as officials we don't care about "the number of steps" (1, 2, 100) and only care about "movement of the pivot foot in excess of what is allowed by rule."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by potato

I know my pictures are not as great as a video, but i also described the scenario beside the picture.

I know when you determine the ball has rested, that is why i mentioned the player was not palming or holding the ball in the 1st step. So would it be considered that he only ended the dribble on the 2nd step? If that is the case we can see the player has taken an abnormal 3 steps after the last dribble bounce.

Again if it were a clear cut 90's basketball this kind of question would hardly exist but since we are using pretty much the same rules as the 90's while new play style has been invented i though i'd ask.

Thus i'd like to hear how non-NBA officials see it.

When we determine the dribble has ended we then determine which foot is the pivot. So in your scenarios what you need to do is determine which foot is the pivot foot based on your judgment as to when the dribble ended. You want us to do that for you based on a picture or description.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by potato

I know my pictures are not as great as a video, but i also described the scenario beside the picture.

I know when you determine the ball has rested, that is why i mentioned the player was not palming or holding the ball in the 1st step. So would it be considered that he only ended the dribble on the 2nd step? If that is the case we can see the player has taken an abnormal 3 steps after the last dribble bounce.

Again if it were a clear cut 90's basketball this kind of question would hardly exist but since we are using pretty much the same rules as the 90's while new play style has been invented i though i'd ask.

Thus i'd like to hear how non-NBA officials see it.

Even if you showed a video there would be people here that might disagree when a pivot foot is exactly established. That is after all why we get paid the big bucks and we bring our personal experiences and judgments to the table. So if you are looking for a single answer that everyone is going to agree with, you are not going to get one. We disagree here all the time even when the rules are clear or have little wiggle room. Heck if you even read this site there are many that want to make everything a travel while others think those situations are being very technical. And your pictures certainly are not going to change that fact.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even if you showed a video there would be people here that might disagree when a pivot foot is exactly established ...

... and when the ball comes to rest, thus ending the dribble.

[Jdotmozy]

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt, or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not a backcourt violations.

However, in the case book 9.9.1 Situation D, states that this is indeed a backcourt violation. Is it strictly because the player leapt from the front court into the backcourt versus already being in the backcourt?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jdotmozy

During a throwin, even under a team’s own basket, if the throwin is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; or after a missed field goal attempt, or a missed foul shot attempt, if the ball is deflected, tipped, or batted by an offensive player in the frontcourt to an offensive player in the backcourt; these are not a backcourt violations.

However, in the case book 9.9.1 Situation D, states that this is indeed a backcourt violation. Is it strictly because the player leapt from the front court into the backcourt versus already being in the backcourt?

yes -- once the player caught the ball, the ball was in the FC, with team control. So, when the player landed in the BC, it's a violation. The "throw-in exception" applies only to the player to first touch the ball -- once the ball was tipped, that exception no longer applies.

[Jdotmozy]

Got it. Don't have to agree with it, but I will call it if I see it. I just don't like how a player jumping from FC, catching a tipped throw in, landing in BC is a violation. When it's legal on an untapped throw in, or if player was already in the BC. Just seems sketchy to me and doesn't fit IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

yes -- once the player caught the ball, the ball was in the FC, with team control. So, when the player landed in the BC, it's a violation. The "throw-in exception" applies only to the player to first touch the ball -- once the ball was tipped, that exception no longer applies.

And I think that is a silly exception...not that it exists but that it ends too early.

It SHOULD be that the backcourt violations after a throwin, steal, or a shot attempt (not in control of the team catching the ball in the historic definition of team control) don't take effect until after a player inbounds has caught the ball and landed...even if the first player caught the ball and passed it before landing.

It shouldn't matter if the ball was tipped or not or by who it was tipped. It keeps the interpretations and scenarios clean and simple. Allow such extra room in these three cases would rarely come into effect and having them be illegal doesn't really solve a problem needing solving.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jdotmozy

9.9.1 Situation D.

Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. A1's
throw-in is deflected by B1; A2 jumps from Team A’s frontcourt, catches the ball
in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The
throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. A2 gains player and team control in
the air after having left the floor from Team A’s frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt
status. As soon as A2 lands in the backcourt, he/she has committed a backcourt
violation. The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in
ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-3)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And I think that is a silly exception...not that it exists but that it ends too early.

It SHOULD be that the backcourt violations after a throwin, steal, or a shot attempt (not in control of the team catching the ball in the historic definition of team control) don't take effect until after a player inbounds has caught the ball and landed...even if the first player caught the ball and passed it before landing.

It shouldn't matter if the ball was tipped or not or by who it was tipped. It keeps the interpretations and scenarios clean and simple. Allow such extra room in these three cases would rarely come into effect and having them be illegal doesn't really solve a problem needing solving.

Way back when we had this argument, before the Fed clarified that the previously parenthetical examples were all inclusive, I thought they were only examples and the exception should apply to any player who establishes team control while airborne from his/her front court.

I still think that's how it should be.

[mutantducky]

If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he or she can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Is there any restriction on dribbling? Can the player after coming inbounds start, get the ball and then dribble?
If A1 is dribbling, loses the ball or dodges a player and goes out of bounds, can A1 return and continue the dribble? Or would this be like a fumble and can only get the ball but not dribble?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

Is there any restriction on dribbling? Can the player after coming inbounds start, get the ball and then dribble?
If A1 is dribbling, loses the ball or dodges a player and goes out of bounds, can A1 return and continue the dribble? Or would this be like a fumble and can only get the ball but not dribble?

Depends -- did the dribble ever end? That's all you need to know.