BC violation?
 

I'm the new T (two man), in transition. A-1 dribbles the ball in her BC, close to the division line.

B-2 comes from behind A-1 and steals the ball, about 3-5 feet from the line, and takes it into her BC. I pause for a second for my partner to get it. (He's practically on the line.) He didn't, so I came in late with a whistle and a BC violation against B. I got a "what the hell are you doing?" look from my partner, but we moved on.

In our post-game discussion, he says there's an exception in the BC rule for a steal. I tell him that only applies to airborne players, jumping from FC and catching the ball before landing in the BC (much like the exception on throw-ins). I saw B-2 control her dribble in her FC and take into the BC, all violation criteria met. It was an unfortunate location for B-2, but it was still a violation. He also wanted to know why I was "even looking there?" We were in transition, so the areas are not as defined.

Is this my kick? Thoughts?

Good call. You were right.

Great call.

I'm confused why your partner thought it was his call. Sounds like the play was right in front of you and it's your play to watch even on a steal. There should be a bunch of other players he/she is watching.

"Because I knew I was working with someone who doesn't know the rules."

Correct call, assuming the player actually controlled the ball in the front court prior to going into the back court. And it is a call that you should get since you were right there and your partner missed it.

I guess you're partner isn't technically incorrect if he thought it was his call. If there was a change of possession, he would have become the trail with division line responsibilities. However, in transition or press coverage situations, especially in 2-man, the lead should assist the Trail with division-line violations, if they are in position to do so.

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?

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

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 ...

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.

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.

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

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.

The count terminates whether B2 gains PC or not.

Team A is in control of the ball in the BC, B2 knocks the ball away and you are terminating your BC count?

Also, let's not forget that the partner did know the BC exception in relation to this play: "In our post-game discussion, he says there's an exception in the BC rule for a steal." The defensive player did not steal a pass while airborne. The partner did not say that B2 never gained PC in her back court.

B knocked the ball into A's front court . . .

That's not the description bainsey gave. He said B2 stole the ball in A's back court, he didn't say she knocked it away.

No, otherwise it wouldn't have been a violation. The OP said they gained control in A's backcourt (B's frontcourt) and then went into A's frontcourt (B's backcourt). So the count wouldn't terminate until B gained possession, still in A's backcourt.

He called backcourt violation because Team B gained possession in its FC and then dribbled into B backcourt. Bainsey would have been counting 10 on team A originally. If B gains control of ball then the count on A stops. If B just knocks ball around then count on A continues until ball hits A FC.

He called violation so he had to have determined that B controlled ball in FC and dribbled or fumbled it into BC and was first touch.

B2 "took" the ball into B's BC. That terminates the count whether B2 has PC (as part of the "taking") or not.

B2 first touched the ball 3-5 feet from the division line. bainsey is responsible for the count. Until the ball moves to Team A's FC he has to judge whether or not B2 is in possession at any point before she crosses the division line. He so judged. The same way it could be judged Buddy Hield had PC in his front court in that play from the Oklahoma game (absent other aspects of that particular play).

I think BNR's point is that since Bainsey was the one on ball here up until the steal, this particular call is actually easier for him to make.

I think we can agree that at the beginning of pressing action, the job of judging BC violations belongs to new L. That's one of the reasons that L stays back to help on the press. (And, the same applies to C in three-person -- and if it's really a strong press, it *might* even fall to L)

At some point it switches to new T.

In between, it might be some joint coverage.

As I envision the play (recognizing that I might be envisioning it wrong, after re-reading the entire thread; and recognizing that others might be envisioning it differently), I don't see it as being the new T's (full) responsibility, yet.

I think that this is one of those calls where either official can get it (assuming they both know the rules, of course, which was an issue in the OP). And, if one of them judges control and the other doesn't, ...