By unilateral decree...

Scrapper1

Nevadaref wrote
he clearly cannot be the last player IN THE FRONTCOURT to touch the ball "BEFORE it went to the backcourt" as the text of the rule requires for there to be a violation.

It is blatantly obvious to me that the words "in the frontcourt" in 9-9-1 modify "he/she or a teammate" and not "the ball." Therefore, the requirements of the rule hinge upon the FC/BC status of the player who is last in contact with the ball, not that of the ball itself.

Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

Adam

Scrapper1 wrote
Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

CoachP

Scrapper1 wrote
Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

Snaqwells wrote
I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

A1 stands in the backcourt, no dribble yet, places the ball in the froncourt, wipes her hands off on her socks, then picks the ball up.

If it's a dribble, not a BC violation.
If it's not a dribble?

Sorry couldn't resist.....🙂🙂🙂

Scrapper1

CoachP wrote
A1 stands in the backcourt, no dribble yet, places the ball in the froncourt, wipes her hands off on her socks, then picks the ball up.

Oooooo, you're in rare form, Coach. 😀 That's a good one, I have to admit.

Scrapper1

Scrapper1 wrote
Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

Snaqwells wrote
I have a dribble here, no BC violation.

Even without the disputed interp, my play above should be a violation:

1) Team control -- yes
2) Frontcourt status -- yes
3) Team A last to touch ball before it went to backcourt -- yes (even though A1 was standing in his backcourt when he made that touch)
4) Team A was first to touch ball after it went to backcourt -- yes.

Adam

Scrapper1 wrote
Even without the disputed interp, my play above should be a violation:

1) Team control -- yes
2) Frontcourt status -- yes
3) Team A last to touch ball before it went to backcourt -- yes (even though A1 was standing in his backcourt when he made that touch)
4) Team A was first to touch ball after it went to backcourt -- yes.

No FC status. A1 standing in the BC and bouncing the ball in the FC is the start of a dribble.

Camron Rust

Scrapper1 wrote
Even without the disputed interp, my play above should be a violation:

1) Team control -- yes
2) Frontcourt status -- yes
3) Team A last to touch ball before it went to backcourt -- yes (even though A1 was standing in his backcourt when he made that touch)
4) Team A was first to touch ball after it went to backcourt -- yes.

If it is a dribble, then no to #2. However, if it returns to A2, it is a pass and would be a backcourt violation.

Camron Rust

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
Camron:

Read my initial post in this thread (#29). This is an interpretation that has been around for over 45 years. I really don't see how way too many nonsense plays can be created as the result of this interpretation. It is a logical interpretation and quite a simple and elegant interpretation.

I've seen no evidence that this position existed before last year.

There are many crazy situations IF this interpratation were true....

#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

#2. A1 near the division line in the BC attempts a pass to A2, also near the division line in the BC. B1 jumps from the FC in an attempt to intercept the pass. B1 slightly deflects the pass but the pass continues on, in flight, to A2. By your interpratation, this would be a BC violation against A.

These two results are just nonsense.

This interpretation is in direct contradiction with the rules. THere is NO way to read the rules and come to this conclusion. It may be that some people believe that this was the case...and perhaps for a long time....but there is no rules basis for that conclusion.

just another ref

Camron Rust wrote
#1. A1 dribbling the ball in the backcourt with one foot on each side of the line. B1 slightly touches the ball (or is touched by the ball) just before it returns to A1's hand during the dribble. Since B1's touching ends the dribble (and removing the benefit of the 3-points rule), the ball gains FC status on B1's touch. The moment it returns to A1's hand, you have a backcourt violation. B1 only needs to get a finger tip on the ball as it returns to A1's hand to cause A1 to violate.

A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
A slight touch, if A1 does not lose control, does not end the dribble.

What if that slight touch was intentional?

Adam

Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

just another ref

M&M Guy wrote
What if that slight touch was intentional?

What if it was? The rule used to say "a bat by an opponent" ended the dribble, but had no provision for the dribble to end if the opponent "was touched" by the ball. Now the two are lumped together, ball touches or is touched by, but the phrase "causes the dribbler to lose control" is attached to both. This change took place after a long discussion here about this matter, which was sparked by a "good question" by, uh, okay, it was me.

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
What if it was? The rule used to say "a bat by an opponent" ended the dribble, but had no provision for the dribble to end if the opponent "was touched" by the ball. Now the two are lumped together, ball touches or is touched by, but the phrase "causes the dribbler to lose control" is attached to both. This change took place after a long discussion here about this matter, which was sparked by a "good question" by, uh, okay, it was me.

Well, the only reason I asked was, in your question, realistically it doesn't make a difference because A1 didn't "lose control" and is still dribbling. But, technically speaking, didn't the dribble end and A1 started a new dribble? What if the touch caused just enough of change of direction that A1 had touch it with both hands to re-gain control of the dribble? With only a "slight touch" by B1, would you say A1 violated by touching the ball with both hands while dribbling? What do you consider "losing control"?

just another ref

M&M Guy wrote
Well, the only reason I asked was, in your question, realistically it doesn't make a difference because A1 didn't "lose control" and is still dribbling. But, technically speaking, didn't the dribble end and A1 started a new dribble? What if the touch caused just enough of change of direction that A1 had touch it with both hands to re-gain control of the dribble? With only a "slight touch" by B1, would you say A1 violated by touching the ball with both hands while dribbling? What do you consider "losing control"?

Losing control is a gray area. I thought that was the point of the use of the phrase "slight touch," in this case, and that the dribbler did not lose control.

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
Losing control is a gray area. I thought that was the point of the use of the phrase "slight touch," in this case, and that the dribbler did not lose control.

I think that was the purpose of the change - we no longer have to judge the difference between a "slight touch" and "intentional bat".

Camron Rust

just another ref wrote
What if it was? The rule used to say "a bat by an opponent" ended the dribble, but had no provision for the dribble to end if the opponent "was touched" by the ball. Now the two are lumped together, ball touches or is touched by, but the phrase "causes the dribbler to lose control" is attached to both. This change took place after a long discussion here about this matter, which was sparked by a "good question" by, uh, okay, it was me.

While that is entirely beside the actual point, that implies that player control is lost if A1 has to make any sort of adjustment in response to B1's touch....it was briefly out of player control.

The real point was you can easily contruct cases that become backcourt violations that simply defy common sense....not to mention the rules.

Mark Padgett

Snaqwells wrote
Okay, when does the rule say a dribble ends?

When you've patted it with a bib.

Sorry - I just got back from visiting my grandson who turned three last week. We had lunch together today.

just another ref

Okay, when does a dribble end?

Mark Padgett wrote
When you've patted it with a bib.

Sorry - I just got back from visiting my grandson who turned three last week. We had lunch together today.

So the little fellow cleaned you up. There's a good boy.😃

Nevadaref

Scrapper1 wrote
Just to play devil's advocate, how does that logic affect the play where A1 stands in the backcourt and throws the ball so that it touches the frontcourt with backspin and it bounces back to him and he catches it in the backcourt.

This seems to be a violation. But by your logic above, it never touched him or a teammate "in the frontcourt".

There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Please don't confuse yourself by lumping them together. Doing that will yield incorrect results.

My play is governed by 9-9-1, since the ball was touched by a player from either team in the frontcourt of Team A, and is not a violation according to any sensible reading of the rule.

Your play falls under the purview of 9-9-2 and is a violation.

Scrapper1

Nevadaref wrote
There are TWO different backcourt rules: 9-9-1 and 9-9-2.

Right, which is why I was concerned about the reasoning that was being discussed. It seems to make the play legal, even when it's clearly stated by rule not to be legal.

« Previous Page