Over & Back on Throw In

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You mean being in the frontcourt is not over the line but is behind the line?????

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is "being" over the line, not "going" over the line.

I suppose that's another way of looking at it, but again, not wholly accurate in some situations, such as the violation immediately following a jump ball.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Same thing. I have no idea how the ball can gain FC status (which is necessary to have a violation) without it ever being "over" the line by nature of contact with the floor or in contact with a player who is in the FC (noting the definition of ball location).

An airborne player can give the ball status.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

So what? Nothing said it had to cross the line. The problem isn't going over and back. It's being over and then going back.

How it got over is the part that's irrelevant.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So what? Nothing said it had to cross the line. The problem isn't going over and back. It's being over and then going back.How it got over is the part that's irrelevant.

That's fine, jar, but there are still ways there can be a backcourt violation without the ball ever "being" over the division line on jump balls and throw-ins. I've alluded to one of them above.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

That's fine, jar, but there are still ways there can be a backcourt violation without the ball ever "being" over the division line on jump balls and throw-ins. I've alluded to one of them above.

1. Traveling
2. Double Dribble
3. Carrying
4. Stepping out of bounds
5. Excessive swinging of the arms and elbow (without contact)

I found a whole bunch of them...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

That's fine, jar, but there are still ways there can be a backcourt violation without the ball ever "being" over the division line on jump balls and throw-ins. I've alluded to one of them above.

The ball's location in space with regard to the division line is never relevant.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Adam

The ball's location in space with regard to the division line is never relevant.

I agree. I believe that semantically/technically, others are suggesting otherwise.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I agree. I believe that semantically/technically, others are suggesting otherwise.

I don't think it matters.

Colloquially, when the ball gains FC status, it has gone "over."
When it regains BC status, it has gone "back." Works for me (I call it "backcourt", but find the discussion about it amusing).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

An airborne player can give the ball status.

And, by rule, where is that player? They're in the FC having jumped from the FC so when the ball touches that player, the ball also has FC status and has made it over to FC. "Over" is not a physical position relative to the plane of the division line but a status. Try again.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And, by rule, where is that player? They're in the FC having jumped from the FC so when the ball touches that player, the ball also has FC status and has made it over to FC. "Over" is not a physical position relative to the plane of the division line but a status. Try again.

Wow. Okay. No, it hasn't made it "over to the FC;" it has obtained FC status. Those are not mutually inclusive. One is a physical location, one is a status applied without regard to the ball's physical location. I don't really know that this is worth debating anymore, but now you're suggesting that "over" = not physically over the division line, but instead that "over" = having obtained FC status, which is not quite what you were stating earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a perfectly accurate description of the play in all cases I can think of...you have to get the ball over the division lineand then go back to have the violation.

But again, I think we've about exhausted this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Wow. Okay. No, it hasn't made it "over to the FC;" it has obtained FC status. Those are not mutually inclusive. One is a physical location, one is a status applied without regard to the ball's physical location. I don't really know that this is worth debating anymore, but now you're suggesting that "over" = not physically over the division line, but instead that "over" = having obtained FC status, which is not quite what you were stating earlier in the thread:

But again, I think we've about exhausted this one.

Let me ask this: How is the ball status defined? How is ball location defined?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Adam

Let me ask this: How is the ball status defined? How is ball location defined?

1) By the parameters of live/dead.
2) By the status (FC/BC and IB/OB) of what/who is touching it or it is being touched by.

I'm not sure where you're going...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

1) By the parameters of live/dead.
2) By the status (FC/BC and IB/OB) of what/who is touching it or it is being touched by.

I'm not sure where you're going...

Or where it was last touched. A ball's location is defined by the location of who is touching it. So, while the ball may be in the space above one court (or OOB), it's actual location (by rule) may be someplace else entirely.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Or where it was last touched. A ball's location is defined by the location of who is touching it. So, while the ball may be in the space above one court (or OOB), it's actual location (by rule) may be someplace else entirely.

My point exactly.