Michigan/Mich State

[Curious]

Anybody see the game tonight?

I'm an old BB official but have been off the floor for some time; so I have a rules question.

Big "over-and-back" call in the last minute.

MSU has ball side out in front of their bench.  Throw-in NOT caught by MSU player; bounces away toward the division line.  MSU player attempts to dribble the ball but knocks it off his foot.

Ball bounces into the back court where he (MSU player) is the first to touch it.  Official calls back court violation.

Question 1: under NCAA rules, doesn't possession first have to be gained by the offensive team before this violation can be called? 

Question 2: IMO, the attempt to control the ball by pushing it off his foot did not constitute possession by MSU.  IF you saw the play (because it would be hard to respond without seeing it), did you think the MSU player gained possession?

Thanks   

   

[Rulesman]

Didn't see it, but you may have answered your own question: "MSU player attempts to dribble the ball..."

Is it possible it was ruled his dribble constituted gaining possession, after which he caused the ball to go into the back court? Been away from college basketball for several years, but if this was the ruling it sounds correct.

[Grant - AR]

Not trying to derail this thread, but I have a similar question.  What criteria have to be met to have a back court violation?  I saw this called earlier in the year in a junior high game.  The player with the ball had crossed half court.  As he was dribbling, he stepped on the line at half court and a back court violation was called.  From what I could tell, the ball never crossed back over the line...only his foot.

[Rulesman]

For a player who is dribbling, once "3-points" (the ball and both feet) make it into the front court, the player and the ball are in front court, by rule. If he subsequently steps into the back court while still in possession of the ball, he has committed a back court violation. Sounds like they got it right.

[Grant - AR]

For a player who is dribbling, once "3-points" (the ball and both feet) make it into the front court, the player and the ball are in front court, by rule. If he subsequently steps into the back court while still in possession of the ball, he has committed a back court violation. Sounds like they got it right.

Thanks.  I thought a backcourt violation was about the ball.  Guess I was wrong.   

[Curious]

Didn't see it, but you may have answered your own question: "MSU player attempts to dribble the ball..."

Is it possible it was ruled his dribble constituted gaining possession, after which he caused the ball to go into the back court? Been away from college basketball for several years, but if this was the ruling it sounds correct.

I tried to be as clear as I could in describing the play ("attempts to dribble"); but it seemed pretty clear that the MSU player never gained possession in the front court.  Attempting to dribble IMO does not imply possession or a "player in control" of the ball.  Since there is no team control on a throw-in and the MSU player never gained control, I must respectfully disagree with you on this one "R-man".  No back court violation!!!

Anybody else see this??

[Rulesman]

I tried to be as clear as I could in describing the play ("attempts to dribble"); but it seemed pretty clear that the MSU player never gained possession in the front court.  Attempting to dribble IMO does not imply possession or a "player in control" of the ball.  Since there is no team control on a throw-in and the MSU player never gained control, I must respectfully disagree with you on this one "R-man".  No back court violation!!!

Anybody else see this??

Before you disagree, go back and read what I wrote.

I said I didn't see the play, but asked "Is it possible it was ruled his dribble constituted gaining possession, after which he caused the ball to go into the back court? Been away from college basketball for several years, but if this was the ruling it sounds correct."

If it wasn't the ruling, then yes, no violation.

[Curious]

Before you disagree, go back and read what I wrote.

I said I didn't see the play, but asked "Is it possible it was ruled his dribble constituted gaining possession, after which he caused the ball to go into the back court? Been away from college basketball for several years, but if this was the ruling it sounds correct."

If it wasn't the ruling, then yes, no violation.

My Bad!   Wish someone who saw the play would weigh in.  Maybe we can get TXMike to DVR basketball games!

[Rulesman]

...Maybe we can get TXMike to DVR basketball games!

Doubt it. The ball is the wrong shape. 

[APG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxT7sprhEx8

That is the play in question.

The four criteria for a backcourt violation (NCAA and NFHS):

1. Team control (and initial player control when coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves a front court status
3. Team in control is last to touch the ball before the ball achieves a backcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after the ball achieves a backcourt status.

A team is considered in control of the ball when holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds or the ball is at the disposal of the throw-in/free throw team. A player is in control of the ball when they are holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

Now that we got that out of the way, the player in question bats the ball down twice...and it's close but the third bat could easily be judged as the beginning of the dribble....since it's the beginning of a dribble, by rule player control has been established. Thus it would be a backcourt violation.

[Curious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxT7sprhEx8

That is the play in question.

Thanks!  Now we have something that everyone can look at and judge for themselves.

The four criteria for a backcourt violation (NCAA and NFHS):

1. Team control (and initial player control when coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves a front court status
3. Team in control is last to touch the ball before the ball achieves a backcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after the ball achieves a backcourt status.

A team is considered in control of the ball when holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds or the ball is at the disposal of the throw-in/free throw team. A player is in control of the ball when they are holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

I don't think this is true.  CB play 4.12 Comment specifically says "there is no team control during a throw-in".  In this case, I'm suggesting that the MSU player really never gained possession

Now that we got that out of the way, the player in question bats the ball down twice...and it's close but the third bat could easily be judged as the beginning of the dribble....since it's the beginning of a dribble, by rule player control has been established. Thus it would be a backcourt violation.

I agree it DOES come down to whether the official considers the MSU player actually "dribbled" the ball... However, IMO, the definition (4-15-1) if a dribble is: movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand)...".

I'm questioning whether either the team or player really ever gets "control" here.   Would love others to weight in.

[APG]

There IS team control during a throw-in...it's been that way at the NCAA level for quite some time, and NFHS recently added team control during a throw-in this year to match.

NCAA Rule Book (2011-13)

Rule 4, Section 15
Art. 2. A team shall be in control when:

c. When a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in; or

NFHS (2011-12)

Rule 4, Section 12
ART. 2 . . . A team is in control of the ball:

d. When a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.

[Rulesman]

I believe there still is a throw-in exception contained in the rule.

[Curious]

There IS team control during a throw-in...it's been that way at the NCAA level for quite some time, and NFHS recently added team control during a throw-in this year to match.

NCAA Rule Book (2011-13) 
Thanks, don't have an NCAA rule book.  So just to completely understand, Team A can throw the ball into the back court on a throw-in from the front court (unlike the NBA) but if they touch the ball in the front court and the throw-in goes into the back court, it's over and back? Sounds strange but, if that's the official ruling, my apologies to the official who made the call!!!


Rule 4, Section 15
Art. 2. A team shall be in control when:

c. When a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in; or

NFHS (2011-12)

Rule 4, Section 12
ART. 2 . . . A team is in control of the ball:

d. When a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.

I only have a 2010-2011 rule book (not working BB any more) and 4-12-2b only has a,b,and c; so I guess I stand corrected.  Rulesman, I noticed your reply; do you concur with APG?

[APG]

Under NCAA rules, there's an exception that says something to the effect that until player control has been established (after the throw-in ends), the team in control can cause the ball to go into the backcourt. And the same is true under NFHS rules (though NFHS did a poor job of wording the rule and will most likely have to make some editoral changes this upcoming year).

[Curious]

Under NCAA rules, there's an exception that says something to the effect that until player control has been established (after the throw-in ends), the team in control can cause the ball to go into the backcourt. And the same is true under NFHS rules (though NFHS did a poor job of wording the rule and will most likely have to make some editoral changes this upcoming year).

Thanks for the clarifications APG...

Just one last question: going back to the OP I submitted, IF the official had ruled that the MSU player did NOT gain possession (i.e., actually dribble), there should have been no over/back call.  Right?

[Welpe]

Thanks for the clarifications APG...

Just one last question: going back to the OP I submitted, IF the official had ruled that the MSU player did NOT gain possession (i.e., actually dribble), there should have been no over/back call.  Right?

Correct because there would have been no player control when the ball had front court status. The throw-in ended on the initial touch but there was still no player control while the ball was in the front court.