Great Stuff ...

[BillyMac]

A previous thread pointed me in the direction of a series of articles written by BktBallRef, a.k.a., Tony Haire. Similar to my "Misunderstood Rules" list, he only goes over the really important misconceptions, and he goes into a lot more detail regarding why these four rules are often misunderstood.

These articles are extremely well written. They're worth reading, maybe on your deck, with an cool, adult beverage? Sounds good? Right?

Shambaugh: Basketball official Tony Haire explains some of the rules

[BillyMac]

DISPELLING THE MYTH: Over the back!
By Tony Haire

If you have ever been to an organized basketball game on any level you've heard it.

Two players jump for a rebound and the player from behind gets the ball. "Over the back!"

You've heard it from coaches. You'll hear from other fans. We all hear it when we watch a game on TV. But the truth is, it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as "over the back."

It is a term officials refer to as "announcer speak." It has its origin with the talking heads that grace our airwaves from November to March. Years ago, a play-by-play or color analyst uttered the phrase, "Over the back!"

We don't know who said it. We don't know when it happened. But we know rules myths and fallacies have been created by television's talking heads. This particular myth is so widespread that even some officials mistakenly use the term. Unfortunately, this simply further perpetuates the myth.
The common misconception is that anytime the player who has inside position doesn't get the rebound, then it has to be an "over the back" violation. Fans seem to think this is the case whether there is contact or not. That's the myth.

Rebounding is governed by the principle of verticality, just like other phases of the game that allow a player to legally occupy a space on the floor. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor, provided the player obtains the spot without illegally contacting an opponent. He is allowed to jump vertically within his established space and have his hands and arms extended within his vertical plane. He is allowed this opportunity without regard to where his opponent is positioned.
When a shot goes up, many players go to great lengths to maneuver for position. When the ball caroms off the board or rim, contact can occur between two opponents going for the ball. But just because contact occurs, it does not mean a foul has occurred. If both players are jumping within their vertical plane, then any contact that occurs is incidental.

It is not a foul on the player who is rebounding from behind his opponent just because he is behind him. The player who has position between his opponent and the basket is given no more protection or consideration than his opponent. As long as both players stay within their vertical plane, a foul shouldn't be called.
We also hear many fans yell "over the back" when a taller player reaches over a shorter opponent from behind and snags a rebound - even if he doesn't touch his shorter opponent. Is this a foul? Of course not. First, there has to be contact for a foul to occur. Second, that contact has to be illegal. Finally, why should a player be penalized simply because he's able to reach above an opponent and rebound the ball without contacting him?

You're probably thinking, "If there's no such thing as 'over the back,' when does a foul occur?" A foul occurs when actual illegal contact occurs. A foul occurs when either player displaces their opponent. Without regard to who has better position, a player who pushes and displaces the opponent has fouled. When the player from behind violates the opposing player's vertical plane and displaces him, it's a foul. By the same token, the player in front can jump backwards and foul.
Having the inside position does not guarantee the player a rebound or a foul. Many times, you'll see the inside player jump into the player from behind, who simply went up within his vertical plane. "That's over the back ref!," is often heard. No, I'm afraid it's not. That's a foul on the inside player.
Along those same lines, players can legally box out an opponent. Boxing out is simply a form of screening. But players who are attempting to box out can also foul. We refer to this as "backing out" versus "boxing out."

A player who is boxing out is not allowed to displace his opponent by backing him out, anymore than a player is allowed to push an opponent in front of him. That's a foul. Whether a player is using his hands or his body, it's still a foul to push and displace an opponent.
We also see players who will back under a player who has leaped vertically for a rebound. We once again hear cries of "over the back." But it's the player who is backing out that has violated the rebounder's verticality.

I'm certain that we'll continue to hear cries of "over the back." We'll continue to hear from fans, coaches, players, and yes, unfortunately, a few officials. But you'll know better.

There is no such thing as "Over the back."

[BillyMac]

DISPELLING THE MYTH: That’s traveling!
By Tony Haire

Traveling is possibly the most common - and most misunderstood call in basketball.

Many observers think they know traveling when they see it.
"That looked funny."
"His foot slid."
"Up and down!"
"He caught his own air ball."

These phrases are often heard at basketball games, but the truth is there's far more to traveling than what we learned playing in the driveway.
Let's look at the definition of traveling in the rule book, then break it down from there.

Traveling or walking with the ball is defined as, "moving a foot or both feet in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball."
The most basic issue with regards to whether a player has traveled lies in the latter portion of the definition. With one exception that we will discuss later, a player must be holding the ball in order to travel. A player can't travel while dribbling, while tapping the ball, while fumbling it or while trying to recover a loose ball.
Next, whether a player can move either foot or both feet depends on what has happened prior to the movement. Has the player dribbled yet? Did he/she catch the ball while airborne? Were both feet on the floor when a pass was caught, or was only one foot on the floor? Which foot is the pivot foot?
Those are the issues the official must consider when addressing whether foot movement is legal.

To illustrate these issues, let's look at a couple of plays. Answer whether you think the player should be called for traveling.

No. 1: Player A is holding the ball. Her left foot is her pivot foot. She steps with her right foot and starts to throw a pass. However, a defender leaps in front of her at the last possible moment. She holds onto the ball as she lifts her pivot foot. Did she travel?

No. 2: Player B has just received a pass and is holding the ball. He throws the ball over the defender's head and takes off around him. After the ball hits the floor, he grabs it, takes one step, and attempts a lay-up. Is this a violation?

In scenario No. 1, the player has not traveled. Even though she stepped with her right foot, and lifted her pivot (the left foot) the play is legal as long as she releases the ball prior to putting her left foot back on the floor. Another way to consider this play is that if we whistle traveling, we must do so every time a player jumps to take a shot. The reality is that the only time it's illegal to lift the pivot foot while holding the ball is when a player begins a dribble.

In scenario No. 2, there is no violation. Whether the ball is batted, tapped or thrown to the floor, all the player has done is start a dribble. Even so, many people call this a "self pass." But a pass is defined as movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player. Therefore, it's impossible for a player to throw himself a pass. Had the player in scenario No. 2 touched the ball before it hit the floor, he would have been guilty of an illegal dribble. But the fact that we know he wasn't holding the ball tells us that he could not travel.

Just as confusing for many is what a player can legally do while sitting or lying on the floor. Here are two more plays that are common. Traveling or not?

No. 3: Player A dives for a loose ball on the floor. She gains control of the ball but continues to slide before coming to a stop and requesting a timeout. Is sliding on the floor in such a manner a violation?

No. 4: Player A1 falls to the floor and is lying on his back when he recovers a loose ball. He sits up and passes the ball to another player. Is that legal?
In scenario No. 3, it's perfectly legal and expected that a player who dives for the ball will continue to slide. In such a situation, there is no pivot foot. Once the player stops sliding, she cannot roll over or attempt to get up.

In scenario No. 4, once again the player has not violated the traveling rule. As above, the player has not rolled over or attempted to get up. He can sit up if lying on his back, pass or even shoot the ball. He can even begin a dribble and stand.
However, this brings us to the exception that I mentioned earlier. As I said, it's traveling to attempt to rise while holding the ball. With that in mind, can a player place the ball on the floor, stand and retrieve the ball? No, not within the framework of the rule. This is an attempt to circumvent the rule and is the only time a traveling violation can occur when the player is not holding the ball.
And finally, everyone's favorite traveling call.

No. 5: Player A drives to the basket, throws up an air ball, and catches it on the opposite side of the basket. Has he traveled?
In the NBA, and possibly in your driveway, Player A has traveled. But under high school and college rules, the player has not traveled. When a player shoots the ball, player control has ended. It's now a shot that any player can rebound.

Hopefully, that helps settle some of the traveling myths you made have become familiar with over the years. Just remember that the key to these plays is that traveling involves movement while holding the ball.

[BillyMac]

Most call it the "time line," or "the half-court line."
Whatever name you may use, its presence often drives coaches, players, and fans crazy. "That's over and back!" is a common refrain, anytime a player with the ball steps into his front court and then back again. But back-court violations involve much more than just where a player takes his next step.

Over and Back?
Referee's need to pay particular attention to possession before incorrectly calling an over-and-back violation. In order to have a back-court violation, several things must happen. Team A must establish control of the ball with a player holding or dribbling the ball inbounds. Next, the ball must attain front-court status, either by touching a person or the floor in the front court. A player from Team A must be the last to touch the ball before it attains back court status, and ? finally - a player from Team A must be the first to touch the ball after it reaches back-court status.
With those requirements in place, let's look at some commonly misunderstood plays.

Player A1 has the ball for a throw-in under his basket. He tosses the ball to A2 who first touches the ball in his front court. But he's unable to control the ball. It goes off his hand and into the back court where he retrieves it. Contrary to popular belief, this is a legal play. One key element of the four requirements is missing: The ball was not controlled by A2 before going into the back court. Therefore, this is not a back-court violation.

Another aspect of the rule is player positioning while airborne. A player who jumps has the same front- or back-court status that he did when he left the floor. How does that relate to back-court violations? A player who leaps from the back court still has back court status until he touches the floor in the front court. So, if a player jumps from the back court but catches a pass before he lands in the front court, it is a violation. Many fans confuse this, saying that the ball was never in the back court. But there's no requirement that the ball enter the backcourt, only that the ball attain back-court status.

Since we're discussing throw-ins and airborne players, let's discuss some rule exceptions that many people believe are violations. As we said above, there is no team control during a throw-in, because a player has not yet held or dribbled the ball inbounds. The rule allows a player who is catching a throw-in pass to leap from his front court, catch the pass and land in his back court. Any other time, this would result in a violation. In this case, the catch establishes possession but the exception allows him a normal landing. It makes no difference if he straddles the line on his landing or which foot lands first.

In another fairly common case, player A1 is dribbling the ball in his back court. He steps across the division line with one foot and then steps back with the same foot. This is not a violation. A player who is dribbling the ball is not in the front court until both feet and the basketball are no longer touching the back court.

The rule applies differently to a player who is holding the ball while straddling the half-court line. This is the one that gives a coach nightmares. Let's say a player's right foot is in the front court, his left foot is in the back court and neither has been used as a pivot. What can and can't the player do? First, since one foot is in the back court, he has back-court status. He can now use either foot as a pivot. But if he lifts his left foot from the floor, his right foot is now the pivot and he has attained front court status. If he steps with his left and puts it back down in the back court, he has committed a violation. Based on the same principle, if he lifts his right foot, his left is his pivot but he still has back-court status. He can step into the back court or step again into the front court. But there is no violation because he never lost his back-court status.

Finally, a back-court violation can occur without any players entering the back court. Obviously, a dribbler in the front court who dribbles the ball on the time line has committed a violation. For example, players A1 and A2 are standing in their front court. A1 throws a bounce pass to A2. The ball bounces on the division line. When A2 catches the ball, it's a violation. Even if the pass were to bounce a second time in the front court, it would still result in a violation based on the fact that A2 has touched the ball after it had back-court status.

Confusing? Yes, it can be confusing to officials as well. That's why we're constantly studying these and other rules.

I understand why there are so many myths and misconceptions regarding the back court rule. But now you're empowered to explain the rule to the fan sitting beside you the next time a mythical back-court violation isn't called.

[BillyMac]

When James Naismith invented the game of basketball in 1893, he gave us his original 13 rules.

A Bakers Dozen
James Naismith provided basketball players with these 13 original rules for the game:

The ball may be thrown in any direction with one or both hands.
The ball may be batted in any direction with one or both hands (never with the fist).
A player cannot run with the ball.
The ball must be held in or between the hands; the arms or body must not be used for holding it.
No shouldering, holding, pushing, tripping, or striking in any way the person of an opponent shall be allowed.
A foul is striking at the ball with the fist.
If either side makes three consecutive fouls, it shall count a goal for the opponents.
A goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the grounds into the basket and stays there.
When the ball goes out of bounds, it shall be thrown into the field of play by the person first touching it.
The umpire shall be judge of the men and shall note the fouls and notify the referee when three consecutive fouls have been made.
The referee shall be judge of the ball and shall decide when the ball is in play, in bounds, to which side it belongs, and shall keep the time.
The time shall be two 15-minute halves, with five minutes' rest between.
The side making the most goals in that time shall be declared the winner.

Conspicuously absent was one of today's basic principles, the three-second violation. The need for a three-second rule didn't arise until 1936, when roughness among post players first found its way into the game. But even now, more than 70 years later, myth and fact remain far apart for many fans.
The three-second rule was written to reduce roughness under the basket among the game's big men. But just a few years later, it became apparent that it also prevented an offensive player from gaining a large competitive advantage.

The rule states that an offensive player shall not remain in the free-throw lane for three consecutive seconds while his team has control of the ball in their frontcourt.

What many fans don't realize is there is no three-second count during a throw-in, there's no count when the ball is in the back court and the count ends once the ball has been shot.

A new three-second count would not begin unless the offensive team rebounded the ball and there was an offensive player in the paint. This is where many officials often hear the screams of "3 seconds!" from the fans. The ball is shot and the offensive team repeatedly rebounds the ball and shoots the ball, all the while with several offensive players in the lane. Each time the ball is shot, the count ends.

Another aspect of the rule is that a player who has been in the lane for fewer than three seconds is allowed to receive the ball and move in an attempt to score. During this allowance, the count is suspended. The rule is somewhat ambiguous with regard to what "moving to try for a score" entails.

It leaves the play open to the judgment of the official. But the rule is clear that the player must attempt to score. For example, a player in the lane under the allowance who has been in the lane in excess of 3 seconds should be immediately called for a violation if he were to pass the ball to a teammate, because he did not attempt a shot.

When is a player in the lane? If any part of either foot is in the lane or on lane lines, the player is in the paint. Most officials are not going to call a violation if a player has a toe on the line. But by rule, the player is in the lane.

The most common thing a player will do is have one foot in the lane and one foot out. The player will lift the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching the paint. Unfortunately for the player, the rules address this - and it's still a violation.

Although I haven't seen it in years, at one time it was not uncommon for a player to step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a violation. But the rules were also changed to address this tactic as well.

Finally, the most recent change to the rule addressed the three-second violation while there was no player control. Prior to the 2003-2004 season, there was no count when an offensive player had fumbled or lost the ball. For example, player A is dribbling the ball in his frontcourt when it's knocked away by a defender. In this situation, if there was a 3 second count, the count terminated immediately. If a Team A player regained possession of the ball, a new count would begin on any player in the lane. But in 2003, this exception was eliminated. The count now continues in such a loose ball situation.

The game of basketball grows and changes every year. We will continue to see rules changes, but we hope this clarifies the three-second rule.

[grunewar]

"announcer speak," "talking heads" - NICE!

Well written and informative Tony.

Thanks for sharing Billy!!

[Adam]

Billy, did you ask for Tony's permission before posting this?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Billy, did you ask for Tony's permission before posting this?

What do you think?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Billy, did you ask for Tony's permission before posting this?

BktBallRef: Would you like me to delete this thread (I think that I, as a thread starter, but as a non-moderator, can do that)?

Smitty's post led me to assume that BktBallRef's writeup had previously been published on the Forum, before my time, and I also assumed that the search feature doesn't go all the back to the beginning of the Forum. I should probably have paid better attention to Felix Unger (Please note that I made a conscious decision here not to post the link to the famous Felix Unger "When you assume ... " video, although, I will admit, I was tempted. As New York City mayor Ed Koch used to say, "How am I doing?". Maybe I can find a video of him saying that?).

Originally Posted by Smitty

I still carry copies of his Myths writeup in my bag to hand out to people on occasion, it is outstanding.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I wrote a series of articles called "Dispelling the Myth". Google Dispelling the Myth Tony Haire and you'll find them. They've been published on several different sites.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

BktBallRef: I apologize, and stand corrected. I thought that he was referring to something valuable that was posted on the Forum in regard to myths, so I immediately thought of "my" list.

Would posting just the links to these articles have created any legal conflict with copyright restrictions, or to any moral obligations that we may have to fellow Forum members?

How about this, in the newspaper story: "The documents can be viewed, downloaded and printed from the FCPR site."? Does that grant the Forum permission to publish? Probably not? I'm in big trouble. Right?

[BktBallRef]

It's fine. A couple of them have been posted here before as well as on Rivals.com and a few other sites.

Please keep in mind they were written for fans, so I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Please keep in mind they were written for fans, so I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

Disagree. Your work is also appropriate for players, coaches, and a few officials.

Now, "my" list, that's simple stuff, it's long, and because it's so long, it has to be simple.

Thanks for letting me off the hook. I really wasn't looking forward to dealing with copyright attorneys.

[JRutledge]

I think Tony's point is that officials often dissect wording to not fit 100% wording of the rule and that the information was not intended to be accurate to that wording. And people here often spend a lot of time worrying about a specific word or phrase, instead of the content or the purpose of the information.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think Tony's point is that officials often dissect wording to not fit 100% wording of the rule and that the information was not intended to be accurate to that wording. And people here often spend a lot of time worrying about a specific word or phrase, instead of the content or the purpose of the information.

And some people worry about both, and, by contacting the NFHS, through their interpreters, in rule suggestions, try to get the specific word, or phrase, to match the content, or the purpose, of the information. Maybe, in a hundred years, we'll get everything straightened out, or maybe not.