9-9....?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Why shouldn't it get called if it's witnessed by an official who knows the rules and knows it's a violation?

So you call a 3 second violation as soon as you hit a 3 count?

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Why shouldn't it get called if it's witnessed by an official who knows the rules and knows it's a violation?

Because, in my opinion, it's a ticky tack thing to call one second into the game. It has little to no impact on the game other than an official trying to show how smart he is.

I doubt any coach would know it was a violation and I doubt anybody in the crowd would either. Do we really want to blow the whistle one second into the game for this? I don't.

[JRutledge]

Here is the play broken down.



I think this is not a violation. It looks like control is not until the ball is in the backcourt.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the play broken down.



I think this is not a violation. It looks like control is not until the ball is in the backcourt.

Peace

I think she catches it before either foot touches BC. She was in FC. As I said not calling it doesn't bother me because it is that close.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

I would say this is NOT a violation. I base this on the fact that there was NO control prior to this since we were coming off a jump ball, so we are talking about the establishment of initial control.

[deecee]

Play on.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

Play on.

Yup. It's why I asked if the question was theoretical.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I would say this is NOT a violation. I base this on the fact that there was NO control prior to this since we were coming off a jump ball, so we are talking about the establishment of initial control.

The jump ball ended when the ball hit the floor (or another player -- I forget which happened first).

This is a violation.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The jump ball ended when the ball hit the floor (or another player -- I forget which happened first).



This is a violation.

You can't have a backcourt violation without first having control in the front court. There had not been any control established.

No violation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Backcourt by rule.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the play broken down.

I like how Rut can do that. I can't.

[Rich]

The player that controlled the ball had frontcourt status when she caught the ball and subsequently landed in the backcourt.

I'm not looking to split hairs here, but by rule?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Rich

The player that controlled the ball had frontcourt status when she caught the ball and subsequently landed in the backcourt.

I'm not looking to split hairs here, but by rule?

I agree with your point, however:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt,...

Since there has been no team control established, there can be no violation here.

STILL, no violation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I agree with your point, however:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt,...

Since there has been no team control established, there can be no violation here.

STILL, no violation.

She established front court possession when she grabbed the ball.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I agree with your point, however:

ART. 1 . . . A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt,...

Since there has been no team control established, there can be no violation here.

STILL, no violation.

She establishes team control when possessing the ball in the air -- with frontcourt status.