Backcourt

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The whole point is that 4-4-6 is not to be considered. If there is an interrupted dribble (and there is here, it's a given in the OP) then, by definition there is no player control. If there is no player control, then there is no dribble. If there is no player control and no dribble then 4-4-2 /4-4-3 are the only rules which could define the location of the ball.

Define "during" then. During could be interpreted to apply to the time between when something begins and when it ends. The dribble has started but not ended. It is only interrupted. Thus, it could be during.

Again, I don't think that is really the right direction, but it isn't so clear as you like to say.

So, lets just call it a blarge.

[HokiePaul]

The OP states that the "A1 picks up the ball while still having backcourt status", after the ball touched in the front court during an interupted dribble.

For those who are arguing that this is a violation, would the call/opinion change if instead of picking up the ball, "A1 simply resumes his dribble" while still having at least a foot in the backcourt?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

The OP states that the "A1 picks up the ball while still having backcourt status", after the ball touched in the front court during an interupted dribble.

For those who are arguing that this is a violation, would the call/opinion change if instead of picking up the ball, "A1 simply resumes his dribble" while still having at least a foot in the backcourt?

No, any touch would still give the ball backcourt status.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

The OP states that the "A1 picks up the ball while still having backcourt status", after the ball touched in the front court during an interupted dribble.

For those who are arguing that this is a violation, would the call/opinion change if instead of picking up the ball, "A1 simply resumes his dribble" while still having at least a foot in the backcourt?

No,

Once you declare that the dribble is interrupted there is no longer player control. When the ball first lands in the front court it gains front court status. When the player "resumes" the dribble with a foot in the backcourt he has changed the status/location of the ball. It is now in the backcourt. violation still. thx

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

No,

Once you declare that the dribble is interrupted there is no longer player control. When the ball first lands in the front court it gains front court status. When the player "resumes" the dribble with a foot in the backcourt he has changed the status/location of the ball. It is now in the backcourt. violation still. thx

Where does it say player control is relevant here?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Where does it say player control is relevant here?

The relevant part is that when player control is lost the ball touching the frontcourt gives it frontcourt status. Pass, interrupted dribble, fumble, it doesn't matter. Ball in frontcourt, still in team control, now touched by player in backcourt is a violation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Where does it say player control is relevant here?

It's relevant to the status of the ball, IMO. If there is no PC, how can the ball maintain BC status?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's relevant to the status of the ball, IMO. If there is no PC, how can the ball maintain BC status?

I'm fleshing this out, and I'm probably going to land on your side before it's all said and done. My only point right now is the rule isn't as clear cut as some seem to be saying it is. We're having to infer a few things here.

1. The rule simply says "during a dribble".
2. The rules define when a dribble starts, when it ends, and when it's interrupted. Nowhere does it say that the time of interruption is excluded from the "during" portion that, to me, without explicit statements to the contrary, would include the time between the beginning and end of the dribble. We can potentially infer this, but it's not stated.

It may well be there intent, but that's only a guess and to claim otherwise is getting ahead of ourselves, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm fleshing this out, and I'm probably going to land on your side before it's all said and done. My only point right now is the rule isn't as clear cut as some seem to be saying it is. We're having to infer a few things here.

1. The rule simply says "during a dribble".
2. The rules define when a dribble starts, when it ends, and when it's interrupted. Nowhere does it say that the time of interruption is excluded from the "during" portion that, to me, without explicit statements to the contrary, would include the time between the beginning and end of the dribble. We can potentially infer this, but it's not stated.

It may well be there intent, but that's only a guess and to claim otherwise is getting ahead of ourselves, IMO.

Well said...that is pretty much my stance as well.