Backcourt
 

I have been reading posts for a year now. Thanks for all the knowledge I have gained from this site. I had to break down and get a login.

A1 is dribbling in his backcourt near the division line. As he looks to coach for instructions, he dribbles the ball off his leg (interrupted dribble). The ball moves forward just across the division line. If A1 picks the ball up while still having backcourt status (one or both feet), is this a violation? Reference 4-4-1 and 4-4-2 and 9-9-1 and 9-9-2 but I am struggling with this one.

Welcome aboard rookie!!!!

As part of the program, you will be assigned Billy Mac as your mentor. He will critique your posts and add constructive criticism and feedback ( just like a game)....

After the 90 day probationary period, you will be given full membership status.....

The question you have to ask yourself: Is there Player Control during an interrupted dribble?

(I hope I do not offend Billy Mac or anybody without a rule book)

No player control … but there is team control.

Welcome. Great question too ... I would say no violation, but I'm curious to hear what others have. My thinking is:

1) An interupted dribble does not end the dribble: 4-15-4 lists the 5 ways a dribble ends (interupted dribble is not one of them).
2) 4-4-6 states that while dribbling, the ball is in the backcourt until both feet and the ball are in the front court.
3) 9-9-1 and 9-9-2 don't apply because there is no player control during an interupted dribble

If there is no player control during an interrupted dribble, wouldn't the ball then have front court status once it touched the front court?

(I haven't looked anything up yet, I'm just discussing different aspects right now)

I applied my initial thoughts to that of a 10 second count. If A1 throws a lob to A2 when the count is at 9, it is a 10 second violation. If A1 throws a bounce pass the ball gains front court status on the bounce. Team control.

Putting these 2 post together Paul, are you saying you would continue your 10 second count if the ball touched the Front Court after getting away from A1 during an interrupted dribble?

Player control isn't relevant here.

I have to admit, the OP is a question I've asked myself before too.
During a dribble from BC to FC, all three points must gain FC status before a BC call can be considered. Does "during a dribble" include the time while the dribble was interrupted? I'd have to say yes, as nothing has "ended" that dribble yet. So, I've got no-call.

Now, if a teammate or opponent touches it, the dribble has ended and that could affect the ruling.

So, to exaggerate the situation: Your count has reached 6, then interrupted dribble rolls in the front court parallel to the division line for 5 seconds. Are you calling a 10 second backcourt violation?

Interesting point. I think that call would be easier to justify for me with the rules, but I'm not married to that answer.

Interesting question.

With the rules as written, I think I could probably argue both sides....

1. That it is still during a dribble so the ball remains in the BC and, as a result, the dribbler can still pick up the ball and the 10 count continues.

or

2. That "during" a dribble is referring to it being actively dribbled, not during an the interruption. The interruption is more of a suspension of the dribble, not having ended but not "during" it either.

I think that what it boils down to is that these rules were never written with this set of events in mind and anything we decide is really an opinion of interpretation rather than anything concrete.

Now, what would I do? Hmmm. I'm not sure. Maybe I'll just call a travel. :eek:

The OP is a violation. When we say an interrupted dribble has not ended, the only significance is that it may be resumed by the dribbler without a violation. A ball which is not in player control has frontcourt status when it touches the frontcourt. If the dribbler catches the ball or resumes the dribble while he is touching the backcourt, violation.

Do you have rule references for the parts in red?

4-15-5: There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Therefore, where is the ball?


4-4-2: A ball which is in contact with the court is in frontcourt if the ball is not touching the backcourt.

4-12-2c: A team is in control during an interrupted dribble.

Ball in team control was caused to go into frontcourt and now is returned to backcourt.

Violation. 9-9-2

Yet the point that remains unanswered is that the dribble began, the dribble hasn't ended, thus is it actually still "during" the dribble making the 3 points rule relevant.

I think that the spirit of the 3 points rule would make it not applicable. It is designed to allow a dribbler to cleanly cross the line without worrying about exactly where the line is they cross while actively dribbling the ball. I do not believe it is meant to apply to a player who is not currently dribbling.

I disagree. This is one time you do read the book literally. interrupted dribble
That's what it means. There is a dribble which is before this and continues after this but the interrupted dribble is not a part of the dribble.

Some rule-backing for this philosophy:

4-4-6:
During an interrupted dribble:
d. Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.

If the note in 9-3-1 doesn't apply during an interrupted dribble...

Well, that is basically where I went with it after that statement.

Yeah, I guess I would (unless someone has a reference to convince me otherwise).

If the ball rolls to the front court and sits for more than a second (and the dribbler isn't chasing it), then I have to reconsider whether this is an interupted dribble or a bad pass. I think part of the judgement as to whether or not it is an interupted dribble is that the dribbler is chasing after it to resume the dribble.

Am I understanding the train of thought in this discussion? . . .
that an interrupted dribble exists if the dribbler loses control of the ball - dribbling- and then after the ball gets away from the dribbler, it is again controlled by dribbling . . .
but, if the dribbler loses control of the ball, and then picks up the ball, thus regaining player control, the time between losing the dribble and picking up the ball, can't be considered an interrupted dribble, but rather must be called a fumble.

I'm looking at a rule book from a couple years back, but both violations 9-9-1 and 9-9-2 note "player and team control". This isn't the case in the OP due to the interupted dribble.

9-9-2: "while in player and team control in the backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt ..."

So I still do not think this violation applies.

That is obviously not accurately written. If A1 has already used his dribble, then fumbles the ball into the FC, he no longer has PC. And it would be a BC violation for him to reach across the division line and pick the ball up.

We know that the language above can't be correct. If would eliminate a pass from BC hitting A2 in the FC and then rebounding to the BC where it's touched by A1.

That language was one of the several attempts by FED to fix the issues created by TC.

Oh -- on the OP, I have a violation. But, I do see the conundrum on the wording "during a dribble" and when a dribble ends.

You (Bob, BadNewsRef) are right. Sorry that just futher confused the situation. I see the intent with that rule was that player and team control must be established first -- Not maintained.

So I'm seeing two opinions:

1) Violation. An interupted dribble is not a dribble and therefore 2 feet and the ball are not required to gain front court status. Based on the location of the ball gaining front court status, the OP would be a violation when touched in the backcourt per 9-9-2.

2) No violation. An interupted dribble is still a dribble (dribble hasn't ended as in 4-15-4), so 2 feet and the ball is needed to obtain front court status. The 10 second count continues as front court status has not yet been obtained in the OP.

I don't even see this as a debate. The key is that there is no player control during an interrupted dribble. The location of a ball not in player control is wherever it last touched the court.

Where does it say that?

Just because you see it one way doesn't mean it's the correct way: this is a gap in the rules, even if the intent may be clear to you (I'm not so willing to divine the intent of the committee anymore).

Also 4-15-1
A dribble IS-- ball movement caused by a PLAYER IN CONTROL who bats (intentionally strikes ball)…

the ball location rule 4-4-6 says "during a DRIBBLE" from front BC to FC...

Therefore, for the ball and two feet stuff to apply a player must be must be in control and intentionally batting etc. as noted above there is no player control during interrupted dribble. also, interrupted dribble definition says ball deflects off leg or slips away...

interrupted (to stop) dribble is the nearly exact opposite of a dribble. the phrase contains the word DRIBBLE which leads to the confusion but it is not a dribble. clear as mud I'm sure...

4-4-2 & 4-4-3

That doesn't back up your claim any more than 12-5-2 once 4-4-6 is considered.

And I do agree with the violation in principle, but those rules just don't support your above statement.

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.

*I am struggling with this one, I'm trying to imagine this occuring and it would be helpful to have video of this event. Notwithstanding such evidence I'd have to ask myself at the instant that the event occured--"was there player control or not?" Based on the descriptive evidence provided in the post, it appeared that there was an interrupted dribble, thus no player control.

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. ;)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

The rule does not take the length of time of the interruption into account, so it should be deemed an interrupted dribble. So we're talking about a dribbler, meaning the three points rule should still be in effect.

Therefore, it is not a violation.

The intent of player control being lost during an interrupted dribble is for fouls, and shouldn't be applied here. At least that's how it was during another rule discussion, where I tried to apply one definition to a ruling.

My final thoughts on it...hopefully....


Ball location rule: During a DRIBBLE from BC To FC...three point contact etc. required...

Definition of dribble in rule 4.
1. Player in control
2. Batting, intentionally pushing ball to floor...

Must have both to meet THE definition of dribble.

Interrupted dribble definition-- ball deflects off leg or gets away. No player control. (Player isn't intentionally batting or pushing ball.)

Two very different things-nearly opposite when you look at each definition. An interrupted dribble, by definition (no player control and ball getting away) cannot be A dribble because the player is not in control and batting the ball intentionally. It is excluded from the definition of dribble. a Dribble, by its definition, (player in control intentionally batting ball) cannot be an interrupted dribble.

The ball location rule says" during a dribble." Drafters used the term and made the definition above. . They also drafted interrupted dribble definition. If they wanted that included in the ball location stuff they could have said "during a dribble or interrupted dribble"....three points apply. They didn't so only when the dribble definition requirements are met do 3 points apply. Must be player control and intentional batting. Thx

I don't have the rulebook with me, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that the dribble has ended. That's my biggest hangup.

Look at 4-15-6.

During an interrupted dribble:

No closely guarded count.

No player control foul.

No time-out granted.

No out of bounds violation on the player.


In short, nothing associated with a dribble is in effect during an interrupted dribble and I am quite comfortable that this includes the ball maintaining backcourt status.

I think it is also important to note that time is not a factor here. There is no minimum time involved in an interrupted dribble. The key is loss of control.

I'm away on vacation, so like I said... I can't check the book. But that clears it up for me. So we're thinking we have a violation?

Yeah, I know that's where it is at. And I understand it completely. We are used to things beginning and ending. And all in between is part of whatever we are talking about. I think that normal way of thinking is changed in this case by the specific definitions they are giving us. It is more what IS or ISNT a dribble as opposed to beginning and end.

I think they are avoiding saying the dribble ends when the ball gets away because they want the player to be able to resume his dribble. He couldn't do it if they said the dribble ended when it got away. thx

yes

I'm trying to think of how I'd explain it to a coach.

"During the interrupted dribble the ball gained frontcourt status. When your player touched the ball he had backcourt status, hence the backcourt violation."

Take a poll of every coach in the world and ask for a definition of an interrupted dribble. If I did start to explain this (which is unlikely) I would avoid the use of this term.

The division line causes more people to be unhappy for no reason than anything in the game.

While they don't know the definition like we do, I think the use of the term there is sufficient. I mean, I really don't think they will ask what I mean when I say "interrupted dribble."

But I could say "when he lost control of the ball" instead.

I think that would be better. Coaches notoriously see what they want to see and, in this case, hear what they want to hear. You say "interrupted dribble" and they're gonna just latch onto the "dribble" part. And I think most coaches are familiar with the 3 points rule.

That makes sense. Thanks

The End Is Near ...
 

NFHS 4-15-4: The dribble ends when:
a. The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both
hands.
b. The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or
both hands.
c. The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
d. The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to
lose control.
e. The ball becomes dead.

Explain it to him the same way you would explain why you won't grant a time-out during an interrupted dribbled.

What is the purpose of the interrupted dribble definition?

We know during an interrupted dribble there is no PC.

We know we are not supposed to grant a time-out during an interrupted dribble because there is no PC.

During an interrupted dribble, if A1 legally leaves the court he can re-enter the court and resume his dribble.

So in other instances we do not consider an interrupted dribble to be part of the actual dribbling process.

I've thought they needed the interrupted dribble term to define what happens when a dribbler loses control of the ball, but it isn't a fumble, because a fumble can only occur when you lose control while grasping the ball. They needed a term which allows a dribbler to lose control, but then be able to continue the dribble. It just isn't defined well enough. Because it contains the word "dribble" it causes some confusion that it's somehow still the original dribble, but I don't think it is. I agree with the rest of your argument - that makes the most sense to me