BC violation?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm confused why your partner thought it was his call.

HokiePaul has a point. Technically, my partner would've become the new trail on the steal, so any backcourt violation would've been his, and he was right there at the line. I was 15-20 feet behind it. Since the whole thing was in transition, it's hard to pinpoint PCAs, anyway.

I believe my partner thought the steal exception extended to any play within close proximity to the division line. He may have wondered why I'd punish a steal like that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

HokiePaul has a point. Technically, my partner would've become the new trail on the steal, so any backcourt violation would've been his, and he was right there at the line. I was 15-20 feet behind it. Since the whole thing was in transition, it's hard to pinpoint PCAs, anyway.

I believe my partner thought the steal exception extended to any play within close proximity to the division line. He may have wondered why I'd punish a steal like that.

Did he at least understand the rule after your conversation?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

HokiePaul has a point. Technically, my partner would've become the new trail on the steal, so any backcourt violation would've been his, and he was right there at the line. I was 15-20 feet behind it. Since the whole thing was in transition, it's hard to pinpoint PCAs, anyway.

I believe my partner thought the steal exception extended to any play within close proximity to the division line. He may have wondered why I'd punish a steal like that.

I was imagining you being right next to the line and your partner being near the basket.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

HokiePaul has a point. Technically, my partner would've become the new trail on the steal, so any backcourt violation would've been his, and he was right there at the line. I was 15-20 feet behind it. Since the whole thing was in transition, it's hard to pinpoint PCAs, anyway.

I believe my partner thought the steal exception extended to any play within close proximity to the division line. He may have wondered why I'd punish a steal like that.

Ask your partner why he would be looking at the ball handler on the initial play in order to know whether or not the defender stole the ball and gained PC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ask your partner why he would be looking at the ball handler on the initial play in order to know whether or not the defender stole the ball and gained PC.

As described, and during "pressing action", I think that was in his partner's area.

As I picture it, bainsey was at the FT line extended /top of key in A's backcourt, where A1 had the ball. Partner was just in the A's frontcourt, near the division line, near A2 / B2. A1 then passed the ball to / toward A2 and ...

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ask your partner why he would be looking at the ball handler on the initial play in order to know whether or not the defender stole the ball and gained PC.

That would only start a p***ing contest on this day. I've worked with this partner a number of times before, both basketball and soccer, and he's always been a pleasure. He was in a rough mood this time. We've all had them.

[Cole4088]

I feel this isn't a conversation of who's is it but he misunderstood a rule. You were pretty far away to grab that. By book it's your area but a good partner wouldn't ever use that excuse and grab the call being that he is nearest the action and in my opinion a simple call. *If she had clear cut possession*. I could see a scenario where he was right there and she tips it, fumbles, then grabs it with her momentum takes her into BC then he will look at you with that state as if a 'I was right there and it WASNT a BC violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

I feel this isn't a conversation of who's is it but he misunderstood a rule. You were pretty far away to grab that. By book it's your area but a good partner wouldn't ever use that excuse and grab the call being that he is nearest the action and in my opinion a simple call. *If she had clear cut possession*. I could see a scenario where he was right there and she tips it, fumbles, then grabs it with her momentum takes her into BC then he will look at you with that state as if a 'I was right there and it WASNT a BC violation.

In order to fumble, a player must first be holding the ball.
As said earlier, there is no exception for a player who isn't airborne, so even with your changes, it would still be a violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

I feel this isn't a conversation of who's is it but he misunderstood a rule. You were pretty far away to grab that. By book it's your area but a good partner wouldn't ever use that excuse and grab the call being that he is nearest the action and in my opinion a simple call. *If she had clear cut possession*. I could see a scenario where he was right there and she tips it, fumbles, then grabs it with her momentum takes her into BC then he will look at you with that state as if a 'I was right there and it WASNT a BC violation.

Are you actually saying you think Bainsey should not have called such a blatant violation because his partner was closer?

[Raymond]

Bottom line, Bainsey was responsible for the BC count, which means he was responsible for determining possession of the ball while it was still in the BC. He determined that B2 gained PC, which terminates his count. B2 then crossed the division line into Team B's backcourt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

He determined that B2 gained PC, which terminates his count.

The count terminates whether B2 gains PC or not.