Rule Quiz! (File this one under 9J)

[grc5]

So I turned off the last part of the Duke-Ga Tech game last night, but apprently there was a questionable backcourt-violation non-call that had the folks in IC all in a tizzy (not that I read IC... ). It surprised me how many people at IC don't know the rule. And from what I can gather, Patrick got the rule correct, and Elmore didn't.

I'm just curious to see if people outside of Chapel Hell and Tar Heel Nation aren't quite as ignorant.

So, the question is: What needs to be across the half-court line for a dribbling ball-carrier to be considered officially in the frontcourt? No cheating, and no peaking! If you want to reply to the poll, try to not give the answer away.

[CDu]

So I turned off the last part of the Duke-Ga Tech game last night, but apprently there was a questionable backcourt-violation non-call that had the folks in IC all in a tizzy (not that I read IC... ). It surprised me how many people at IC don't know the rule. And from what I can gather, Patrick got the rule correct, and Elmore didn't.

I'm just curious to see if people outside of Chapel Hell and Tar Heel Nation aren't quite as ignorant.

So, the question is: What needs to be across the half-court line for a ball-carrier to be considered officially in the frontcourt? No cheating, and no peaking!

It was answered in the game, when Elmore read the rulebook on air (though I knew this before he read it). You have to have both the ball AND the player in the frontcourt to establish that possession has entered the frontcourt. It's not just the ball, and it's not just the player. Once that has happened, if anything (ball, foot, etc) crosses back into the backcourt with possession of the ball, it's a violation. And yes, Patrick got it right. Though either both he and Elmore didn't realize it from the rule reading, or Patrick didn't realize it and Elmore didn't pipe up to admit he was wrong.

For the record, I think the backcourt violation, along with the ten-second call and the five-second closely contested call are pointless, antiquated rules. With the introduction of the shot clock, you have a set amount of time with which to put up a shot that at least hits the rim. If you don't, it's a violation. However you decide to use that allotted time should be your choice.

If there wasn't a shot clock, then the backcourt violation, ten-second call, and five-second closely contested call make perfect sense. They encourage the offense to actually do something and prevent just running out the clock.

[arbee]

I believe the answer to this question depends on (is different based on) whether the player is dribbling, or is holding the ball. At the following link, go to Rule 4, Section 28 (page BR-89):

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

[Deslok]

One odd bit of rules trivia that I learned a few weeks back(though I'm not sure if this is NCAA or just high school basketball)...

The 10 second backcourt count by which the team must advance the ball across halfcourt, is strictly speaking, only done by the count of the official. The shot clock may read 11 seconds having passed, but if the official hasn't counted to 10, its not a violation. Had that exact situation occur during our conference tournament and stopped to ask the ref afterwards for the explanation as to why it wasn't called and got the summary. Knew the timing exactly because the ball went out of bounds without having crossed halfcourt after 11 seconds passed.

I would imagine that typically a ref would rely on the shot clock for assistance in the count, but strictly speaking, its the refs count that matters, not any external timer.

[IStillHateJimBain]

I saw a game in a high school gym once where the court was so small that the teams were required to use the far free throw line as the halfcourt line. The center circle actually intersected with the top of the key on each end. The visiting team forgot the rule a couple of times and actually got hit with a 10-second call because they crossed what they thought was halfcourt and were setting up the offense. Once a team crossed "halfcourt," then the backcourt line reverted back to the other free throw line so there would be enough room to play. The whole court must have been 60 feet long, maybe less. Guys were making shots from almost halfcourt the whole game.

[aro24]

Just my 2 cents worth...and what I have been taught...
Been playing ball for nearly 25 yrs now, but never had a good understanding until college....I attended 2 different universities (transferred) and took 2 different classes at these schools that focused on rules of basketball. One was a Coaching Team Sports class and the other one actually was Officiating (believe it or not, these weren't pie electives, but actually part of my major of Sport Science)
Anyhow...I digress....both classes were taught by professors that also happened to be basketball coaches at these schools...and the rule was taught as both feet and the ball had to cross before a backcourt could be called.
Now this was 10 yrs ago, so I am unaware if the rule has changed...but I wanted to share my knowledge on the subject.

ARo24

[ugadevil]

Now this was 10 yrs ago, so I am unaware if the rule has changed...but I wanted to share my knowledge on the subject.

The rule has not changed. As a current official, I hear this complaint a lot from coaches. They think that a backcourt violation can occur as soon as someone steps in to the front court, which is incorrect. It's really not a difficult rule.

[SilkyJ]

For the record, I think the backcourt violation, along with the ten-second call and the five-second closely contested call are pointless, antiquated rules. With the introduction of the shot clock, you have a set amount of time with which to put up a shot that at least hits the rim. If you don't, it's a violation. However you decide to use that allotted time should be your choice.

I thought the 5 second closely contested rule was somewhat new??

[CDu]

I thought the 5 second closely contested rule was somewhat new??

It may or may not be relatively new. If it's new, then it was a pointless addition, in my opinion. The shot clock does the job. All of that other stuff is silly.

[Highlander]

I thought the 5 second closely contested rule was somewhat new??

It was actually a normal rule through the early 90's. They took it out around 94 I believe (b/c Grant was our PG and I remember it wasn't in then), but they put it back in around 96 or 97 (and Wojo rejoiced). Other than that one 2-3 year experiment, it's been around awhile.

[rsvman]

I believe the answer to this question depends on (is different based on) whether the player is dribbling, or is holding the ball. At the following link, go to Rule 4, Section 28 (page BR-89):

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

This is interesting. I was always taught "both feet AND the ball" just like Mike Patrick said, and that is certainly true in the usual case when somebody is dribbling the ball across the line, as Paulus was in this case. It was clearly NOT a backcourt violation last night.

The weird part is when the player is standing still with one foot in the frontcourt and one in the backcourt. He is allowed to lift the foot that is in the frontcourt, pivot, and place both feet in the backcourt. No violation. If, however, he lifts the foot that is in the backcourt and then places it back down in the backcourt, it is a backcourt violation, because as soon as he lifts the backcourt foot, the ball is deemed to be in the frontcourt.

I think that the average fan, if they were to witness both of the above scenarios, would be more likely to think the former was a violation and the latter OK, and they would be dead wrong.

Bottom line is that it is not strictly necessary for both feet and the ball to be over the line in order to be considered in the frontcourt. "It shall be in the frontcourt when neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt."

[feldspar]

It was clearly NOT a backcourt violation last night.

Actually, it was.

I went back and looked at the game this afternoon when I got home from work because that play was grating on my mind all day.

Here's what happened:

Greg had possession of the ball and dribbled toward the halfcourt line and, with both feet in the FRONTCOURT, dribbled the ball in the BACKCOURT.

No violation.

Here's where it gets interesting, though.

Greg then ended his dribble with both of his feet in the FRONTCOURT. At that precise moment, when Greg picked up his dribble, the ball had gained frontcourt status, and thus he was eligible for a backcourt violation. A split (I'm talking microsecond that I could only pick up by playing it back in slow-mo) second after Greg picks up his dribble, he lifts his foot and places it in the backcourt. VIOLATION.

You see, the "both feet and the ball" rule is in reference to when you are dribbling. The backcourt violation all stems upon when the ball attains frontcourt status and then, whether any offensive player is the first to touch the ball when it attains backcourt status. Since the ball was touching Greg when he stepped back into the backcourt, the ball had backcourt status. And, since Greg was an offensive player first to touch the ball while in the backcourt after being in the frontcourt, it should have been a violation.

Now, this is all with the caveat* that the play happened so quickly that it would have honestly almost been a guess on the official's part had he called it a violation, but Greg definitely did commit a backcourt violation.

In essence, Len was correct that it was BC, but not for the reason he thought. And Mike Patrick was wrong that it wasn't BC, but he got the rule right.

In other words, par for the course from our announcing crew.


*The other caveat I've discussed with some officiating buddies of mine who saw the game is that there is actually a little bit of dispute as to whether Greg's foot closest to the line was actually touching or not. If it was touching, then both of his feet were techincally never in the frontcourt, therefore no backcourt would have been possible. It looked to me, though, from the replay that his foot was not touching the line. But, maybe the official who was right on top of the play saw it differently and that's why he didn't call it. Who knows, but it makes for a very interesting rules discussion!!

[feldspar]

Also, I'd like to point out that the poll question is a bit misleading.

I'll give you an example to explain.

Let's say that Greg was standing straddling the halfcourt line. His left foot is in the frontcourt, his right foot in the backcourt. Gerald (who is in the backcourt) passes the ball to him.

So, Greg is standing there with the ball in his hands, one foot on either side of the halfcourt line.

Scenario A: Greg lifts his LEFT foot and stands on one foot. Where is Greg? He's still in the backcourt, since his right foot is still planted in the backcourt. He can put his left foot back down and dribble into the frontcourt, no violation.

Scenario B: Greg lifts his RIGHT foot and stands on one foot. Now where is Greg? He is now officially in the frontcourt, since no part of his body, neither foot, nor the ball, is in the backcourt. The ball is also now located in the frontcourt. Were Greg to put his RIGHT foot back down, he would be called for a backcourt violation.

That's why the definition of frontcourt "status" is so important in this discussion (and why Len Elmore had so much trouble understanding it, because he was reading the wrong rule).


Rule 4.28.3

Art. 3. A live ball is in the front court or back court of the team in control
as follows:
a. A ball that is in contact with a player or with the playing court shall
be in the back court when either the ball or the player (either player
when the ball is touching more than one) is touching the back court.
It shall be in the front court when neither the ball nor the player is
touching the back court.
b. A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains
the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the
playing court.
c. During a dribble from back court to front court, the ball shall be in
the front court when both feet of the dribbler and the ball touch the
playing court entirely in the front court.

This rule clearly explains why Greg actually did commit a backcourt violation, because when he picked up his dribble, neither the ball nor the player were in the backcourt, per (a) above.

So, as in many things pertaining to the rules of basketball, the real answer to the poll question is: "It depends."

[mgtr]

^ Great explanation! You should be a TV analyst!!!

[CDu]

Actually, it was.

I went back and looked at the game this afternoon when I got home from work because that play was grating on my mind all day.

Here's what happened:

Greg had possession of the ball and dribbled toward the halfcourt line and, with both feet in the FRONTCOURT, dribbled the ball in the BACKCOURT.

No violation.

Here's where it gets interesting, though.

Greg then ended his dribble with both of his feet in the FRONTCOURT. At that precise moment, when Greg picked up his dribble, the ball had gained frontcourt status, and thus he was eligible for a backcourt violation. A split (I'm talking microsecond that I could only pick up by playing it back in slow-mo) second after Greg picks up his dribble, he lifts his foot and places it in the backcourt. VIOLATION.

You see, the "both feet and the ball" rule is in reference to when you are dribbling. The backcourt violation all stems upon when the ball attains frontcourt status and then, whether any offensive player is the first to touch the ball when it attains backcourt status. Since the ball was touching Greg when he stepped back into the backcourt, the ball had backcourt status. And, since Greg was an offensive player first to touch the ball while in the backcourt after being in the frontcourt, it should have been a violation.

Now, this is all with the caveat* that the play happened so quickly that it would have honestly almost been a guess on the official's part had he called it a violation, but Greg definitely did commit a backcourt violation.

In essence, Len was correct that it was BC, but not for the reason he thought. And Mike Patrick was wrong that it wasn't BC, but he got the rule right.

In other words, par for the course from our announcing crew.


*The other caveat I've discussed with some officiating buddies of mine who saw the game is that there is actually a little bit of dispute as to whether Greg's foot closest to the line was actually touching or not. If it was touching, then both of his feet were techincally never in the frontcourt, therefore no backcourt would have been possible. It looked to me, though, from the replay that his foot was not touching the line. But, maybe the official who was right on top of the play saw it differently and that's why he didn't call it. Who knows, but it makes for a very interesting rules discussion!!

Actually, I'm pretty sure it wasn't. If I recall correctly, the play that brought about the debate was a play in which Paulus did NOT pick up his dribble. He dribbled near halfcourt. At least one foot (maybe both, but I think just his right foot) crossed halfcourt. The ball bounced about a half foot behind the half court line. He then pivoted and returned his body into the backcourt. He never picked up his dribble, and the ball never crossed into the frontcourt. He eventually then made it to the frontcourt successfully, on the student-section side of the court.

For what it's worth, Elmore and Patrick agreed on replay that it WASN'T a backcourt violation. The argument wasn't about whether or not it was a violation, but about the rule. Elmore said it was whether or not the ball was in the frontcourt, Patrick said both feet and the ball.

Now, you may have seen some other play in which Paulus committed a violation (I don't remember such a play, but maybe it happened), but the play you're describing wasn't the play being discussed or reviewed.

[feldspar]

He never picked up his dribble, and the ball never crossed into the frontcourt.

Now, you may have seen some other play in which Paulus committed a violation (I don't remember such a play, but maybe it happened), but the play you're describing wasn't the play being discussed or reviewed.

Nope. Same play. I have it on TiVo. I watched it at least 10 times on slow-mo last night. Paulus clearly picks up his dribble before pivoting into the backcourt.

[Tom B.]

OK, here's another question for all the officials/rules gurus out there. Team A has the ball in the frontcourt. Player 1 on Team A throws an errant pass that looks like it's going out of bounds over the baseline, but Player 2 on Team A manages to save it. Player 2's momentum is carrying him out of bounds, though, so before he goes out of bounds, he chucks the ball blindly over his shoulder in the general direction of the midcourt area. At no time in this sequence was the ball touched by an opposing player.

Player 3 on Team A had been out on the perimeter near the midcourt area while all of this was going on. Thinking that the ball was going out of bounds, he has already started jogging back to the other end of the floor, and has crossed the midcourt line and is now in the backcourt. He then turns around and looks up to see the ball, in mid-air, coming his way. He runs towards it and jumps up in the air to catch it. He has not yet crossed the midcourt line when he takes off, and his "point of liftoff" (i.e., the point where his feet leave the floor) is in the backcourt. He catches the ball in mid-air, and comes down with both feet in the frontcourt. Is this a violation?

I always understood as a general principle that an airborne player's "position" was established by reference to where he left the floor, not where he landed. For instance, if Player 3 had been standing out of bounds instead of in the backcourt, then jumped up, caught the ball in mid-air and landed with both feet inbounds, it would be as if the ball had gone out of bounds because Player 3 had not yet "established" himself back inbounds. If that principle applies here, then it's a backcourt violation.

Under a literal reading of the rule quoted above, though, it seems that the ball would not be deemed to have crossed into the backcourt, because (a) the ball obviously never touched the backcourt, and (b) the player who caught it in mid-air was not "touching" the backcourt, either when he caught the ball or when he came down with it.

Which rule (or perhaps more accurately, which interpretation of the rules) controls in this scenario?

[jjasper0729]

Player 3 on Team A had been out on the perimeter near the midcourt area while all of this was going on. Thinking that the ball was going out of bounds, he has already started jogging back to the other end of the floor, and has crossed the midcourt line and is now in the backcourt. He then turns around and looks up to see the ball, in mid-air, coming his way. He runs towards it and jumps up in the air to catch it. He has not yet crossed the midcourt line when he takes off, and his "point of liftoff" (i.e., the point where his feet leave the floor) is in the backcourt. He catches the ball in mid-air, and comes down with both feet in the frontcourt. Is this a violation?

There was a rule change several years ago that allowed for someone to be in the "backcourt" and leave his feet to receive the ball and land in the "frontcourt". This scenario you have listed would NOT be considered a backcourt violation.

[gvtucker]

It was actually a normal rule through the early 90's. They took it out around 94 I believe (b/c Grant was our PG and I remember it wasn't in then), but they put it back in around 96 or 97 (and Wojo rejoiced). Other than that one 2-3 year experiment, it's been around awhile.

The 5 second rule has been around practically forever, but it has changed quite a bit over the years.

The one biggest change is that the 5 second count used to result in a jump ball, not a change of possession. Even after the jump ball was eliminated and the possession arrow came into play, this rule remained the same. In the mid 90's, though, this rule was finally revised and it became a change of possession.

Back when I was playing hoops in middle school and earlier, the hash mark at about quarter court was relevant here. The 5 second closely-guarded rule was similar to now, except that if you crossed the hash mark the 5 second count repeated. That is why when you see Phil Ford running the 4 corners in the 70's, he continually penetrates, then back the ball out. He's crossing the hash mark to reset the clock.

I believe that the hash mark disappeared from the rule book some time in the late 80's, maybe mid 80's.