9-9....?
 

Backcourt violation, or not?
https://youtu.be/1xqD1erJTEk

Are you speaking on a theoretical level? :)

Looks like it to me. She caught ball in air while jumping from FC. That gives her FC status. Lands in back court. Violation. The exception doesnt apply to her as it was already touched by other player. I wouldnt lose ANY sleep over not calling it as it happened quick etc. it was a BC violation though.

Here is the play broken down.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BS3aOtuVNAM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

NOT a violation
 

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.

Play on.

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

This is a violation.

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

I'm waiting for the "well it's a backcourt because.." and "didn't she travel first"

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

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?

Backcourt by rule.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

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

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

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

Look at player location rule. Airborne player is located where last in contact with floor. She catches ball while in air. Where did she jump from? She jumped from FC. Catches ball while in air. It is now in the FC and in her and her team's control. She lands in BC. Violation. The exception about catching ball with both feet in air does not apply because jump ball was over.

Splitting hairs on when she controlled it. When it takes me a few times looking at replay to figure out where she was when she caught ball I'm not going to call it...

Violation, but one I would probably miss.

Correct answer and correct reasons.

Ok. I was wrong.

While I agree that this is a violation, I would be highly in favor or a rule change (and I've mentioned it before) allowing a player who established team control while in the air to land in the backcourt without penalty. There are many ways it could be done and it would be consistent with the existing exceptions.

They simply need to change to something closer to the way it was worded when we had a long drawn out discussion on whether the parenthetical exceptions were meant to be all-inclusive. Once the current wording was adopted, it was clear that they were, in fact, all inclusive.

I agree, I'd like to see it changed to include any situation where the player catching the ball establishes initial team control in the air.

Loosely applied: 9-9-3 . . . while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt.

Thus, no violation - remember, "loosely applied."

"on defense" is never defined in the rules, but any reasonable interpretation would require an offense. "offense" is again really not defined, but the existence of team control is generally expected.

I agree, and that's why I mentioned that in the play in question, which is clearly after the jumpball had ended, a loose interpretation allows a no-call - as the player in black didn't appear to have control of the ball, which would have allowed an official to consider the player in white to be "on defense."

I agree, since no team controlled the ball until white caught it, white cannot be considered to be "on defense." However, that means the exception doesn't apply. I'm not sure why you said this allows a no call. It leads to a call--violation. Caught in FC land in BC. I'm probably missing what your trying to say...

I would simply say it was so close that i can't be sure and if i can't be sure I'm not going to call it.

p.s. (The offense is defined in the rules fundamentals as the team in control of the ball.)

We are in agreement. I meant that a loose application might allow one to consider that the white player who caught the ball was coming to defend against the player in black.
I'm always trying to be ready to answer a coach's question regarding a call.
So, in this case, what would be the response to a coach who asked about this call?

If he says wasn't that violation? i would say one of the following:

1. Yep, but didn't process it until too late. or

2. Not sure, may have been….

Tell him the truth. It would be a mistake imo to try and tell him about control and offense and defense etc.

If he asks why I didn't call it:

"Coach, you might be right, but it was close enough that I wasn't sure enough to call it."

I'm not going to argue with either side of the argument. You can't really get this one wrong...............unless you really want to get technical and really look at it.

There is nothing more technical than by rule this is a BC violation. In reality it won't and shouldn't get called.

There's also the question of which official would even get a good look at it.

R (or the tossing official) is in the best position, but probably won't be looking over there until players clear the jump circle.

In a 3-person game, neither of the umpires is going to be in a good position to see it... U1 might have a chance.

In a 2-person game, the U would probably get a look (assuming she hasn't moved off the division line yet).

Personally, I'm no-calling this, but I'm also not going to attempt to overrule a partner if they call it.

In reality, it may get missed, but SHOULD get called. It's illegal. It's that simple.

I agree with the poster who stated that a 2-person crew is actually better positioned to make this call than a 3-person crew.

I agree 100%.

Do you really want to start a game by calling this? I don't want to be that guy.

Is not calling it technically wrong? I suppose so, but I'm not calling it. Play on and let's get the game going.

100% correct. Don't be the guy that wants to show how great he knows the rules and call this. Play on!

If I see this, I'm 99% sure I'd call it. I'm not convinced I'd see it, though.

I'm not sure a crew of 2 is going to see this significantly better, since the U is going to be on the opposite side of the court looking through the jumpers. If U can see it, though, it's going to be with the perfect line of sight (as opposed to trying to call this from the FT line extended.

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?

I think you are supposed to be at the 28' marks (or equivalent) -- and I think you'd be able to see it. Unlike SD Referee, I don't think this is "overly technical" or the wrong way to start the game.

Gee whiz, are you gonna call if it if a player barely steps on the sideline during the jump, too? :eek:

Seriously, I don't see why one wouldn't call this if one was sure -- but I certainly see how one might well not be sure, both because it happens quickly and because it isn't one of things one is thinking about during a jump. (And, I suppose, because there are so few jumps in the modern game that there aren't a lot of chances to see the weird stuff actually happen.)

(Camp speak warning): We need to be ready to officiate from the very beginning.

This will be my last foray into this topic. Those on the "if I see it I must call it" do you warn and or T a coach when they step out of the coaching box?

Do you call 3 seconds at 3 and 10 second FT at 10?

The reality of this play is that it's not getting called. It's so close do you really want to start the game with this hair to split? I'm not calling the play that is in this video a BC violation.

Boundary lines defining the play of the game are not subject to gray area decisions with regards to whether the player is or is not in/out of a certain area. If you know the player was in the frontcourt (and it is possible you may not) with the ball and stepped into the backcourt (or OOB), there really isn't a choice to be made. There is no wiggle room within this rule for an exception because it was close or at the beginning of the game.

With regards to the time-based examples you give, the time itself is somewhat subjective and both of those rules have had plenty of press on what they were really intended to address and it isn't just the location or even the time. Both are targeted at unfair advantages (big man under the basket) or borderline unsportsmanlike behavior or unreasonably delaying the game (refusing to shoot a FT).

As for the T on the coach, no. Same reason, not how it was intended to be handled.

Personally, I don't shy away form calling something because it is close, I call things because they're the right thing to call. We're paid to split those hairs and not calling it is merely splitting the hair the other way.

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.

Like somebody above said, do you call 3 seconds as soon as you hit 3 on your count? Do you call every single tiny travel when no advantage was gained.

I just think it's a ticky tack thing to call and the wrong way to start a game. It's nothing more than being too deep into the rule book.

So, if we call the backcourt violation, in question, which team gets the possession arrow?

In my experience, "ticky tack" is an excuse typically used by officials who either don't know the rules or are too scared to do their job and enforce them.

So you're saying I should officiate based on what rules I think the coaches and fans know? Yikes.

Since a BC violation is always preceded by team control, the arrow is properly set toward black's basket the instant white gains control.

I'll refer you to what Camron said because he said it better than I could have.

Wow!!!! Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything even close to that.

What I really said was, I'm not going to go 100% letter of the law in the rule book and call that 1 second into the game. The fans and coaches won't know any better so I don't see anybody getting too upset about that. Fellow officials included. Now, if you want to interpret that as me letting the coaches and fans determine what I call, that's your right. You can be ignorant if you choose.

If you also want to take that as me being too scared and not knowing the rules, that is also your right. I'm willing to bet I know the rules just as well as you do. I'm just not calling something 1 second into the game that has ZERO effect on the game.

Some people on this board take themselves too seriously. They also think you need to call the game to the letter of law or, rules of NFHS, at all times without allowing for personal judgment and what the intent of the rule is. I will put you into that category, since you like to put words in my mouth.

Are you incapable of speaking for yourself? You like to put words in other peoples' mouths. Please let us know your stance on calling 3 seconds as soon as you hit 3.

I was not responding to you. :)

This is exactly what you said. Since when do we care if coaches know what is and isn't a violation? I couldn't care less how "upset" fans and coaches get when I make a call.

A lot of violations (including easy backcourt calls) don't really have an effect on the game. Are you going to ignore all those too? Are you going to ignore a dribbler's heel touching the sideline when there are no players defending him?

And, my stance on 3 seconds is simple. I call it when in my judgment a player is gaining an advantage. Why? Because that's the intent of the rule. Advantage/disadvantage/effect on the game has NOTHING to do with backcourt violations.

I'm not saying I would make this call. But it wouldn't be because I actively chose to ignore it. It would be because I missed it. And I wouldn't lose sleep over it, nor would my assigner. Nor would my assigner be upset if I did call it.

In some (but not all) ways, I think it comes down to this assumption. I *think* you are saying that if you call it, black coach will think "we got away with a cheap violation call" and white coach will think "what a ticky-tack way to start the game."

To the extent that's true, I would challenge it. I think if you call it, black will think "that's an official who knows the rules and what to call" and white will think the same thing. If you don't call it, white will think "we got away with one" and black will what to know "why wasn't that called?" -- and I don't think there's a good answer to that.

And, if you won't call it in the first second, when will you call it? Suppose it happens during a throw-in in the last minute of a tie game (and white / black bat the ball around for a few seconds and then white leaps from the FC, grabs the ball and lands in the BC)?

An extra possession has zero impact on the game?

That is exactly what I said, great job of cutting and pasting. What I did NOT say is that coaches and the crowd knowing the rules or not has any effect on what I call. I was simply implying that I don't think anybody will jump all over you no matter which way you decide to go on that play. I don't care who gets mad and it has no bearing on my calls. Your reading comprehension is atrocious!

I am on record as saying as that is ticky tack and I'm not calling it 1 second into the game. It has NO effect on the game at all. No matter who makes the call one way or the other, I would support it. Guys that want to go letter of the law in regards to the rules book, that's fine. Guys that no call it and play on is also fine with me.

To answer your other questions in one all encompassing answer...........yes. I will ignore things when circumstances allow for it. I don't call travels that aren't super obvious in blow out games. If somebody on a team that is behind by 50 barely touches a line and I might be the only one that saw it, I don't call it. I don't call carries late in a blow out game and it's been the only time it's happened (there are lessons to be taught if the player constantly does it and you need to teach them). Those are a few examples of things I won't call. I suppose some on this board won't like it. That's fine. ALL of the guys that I work with are the same way and treat the above circumstances like I do.

I agree with you Bob, but that's exactly the opposite of my point. My point was that I don't think any coaches would notice it or know the rule, nor would they make a big deal out of you not calling it.

I don't want to blow the whistle 1 second into the game for a play that half of this board thinks is a violation and half thinks it's not or not worthy of calling. Why not play on? An obvious, egregious backcourt violation is worth calling. I just don't feel that calling this serves anybody well and me not calling it has ZERO to do with what the coaches or crowd thinks. For most of us, the crowd and coaches disagree with 50% or more of our calls on a nightly basis. If we cared about what they think we wouldn't call anything.

I understand your point about late in the game. If it's obvious and an easy call, I will call it. If it happens quickly like in this video, I'm not going to call it until I process it and I'm sure of what I saw. I would guess that a lot of us are going to miss it. Maybe not. The guy that processes it quickly and makes the call is doing a great job. Some guys might just process it slower and miss it or just not know the rules. It's hard to say until you are in that situation.

Really? I was waiting for somebody to say that. I suppose if the whole game plays out to a 1 point game, then I suppose somebody could complain "what if we had gotten just one more possession........"? Then yes, it would have some effect.

What if that same game is a 50 point blowout? Does the missed extra possession mean anything?

That question and assumption can go both ways.

Possessions are valuable and in a 1 point game that possession could have influenced part of the outcome. Now I get your point of view, but it you have an obvious violation, it should be called. I would never advocate a "technical" violation to be just called if you cannot tell how obvious it is.

Peace

Yes really. Sure if it is a 50 point game no harm but if a close game it is important. That isn't really for the officials to decide. It is one thing to miss it. It is another thing to ignore it.

If I saw this play on the court, I would have nothing. The ball is last touched by visitors (black) and the home (white) player makes a defensive steal and is allowed to come down in the back court.

Robert,

Id likely have nothing because it is so close and wouldnt be able to tell or process fast enough. Read earlier portions of the thread. The jump ball ended and white was the first team to control the ball. White is the offense. Black touching it does not make it the offense. The defensive exception does not apply. See basketball rules fundamentals in beginning of book. Offense is the team in control of ball. Here, no team in control until white caught it. By rule white cannot be deemed as the defense.

I was just reading NFHS 9-9-3 and NCAA 9-12-10, and observed something.

During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt. (NFHS 9-9-3)

After a jump ball or during a throw-in, the player in his frontcourt, who makes the initial touch on the ball while both feet are off the playing court, may be the first to secure control of the ball and land with one or both feet in the backcourt. It makes no difference if the first foot down was in the frontcourt or backcourt. (NCAA 9-12-10)

So, the wording of the rules with relation to if this action occurs right after a jump ball ends would seem to imply that this would be a legal play in NCAA, and not legal under NFHS. Interesting.

Different wording, same ruling. Still a violation for this play.

You're just wrong on the rule. Touching by black doesn't constitute team control, so it doesn't make white "defense." That exception does not apply.

Explain.

White was not the initial toucher. So he was not covered under the exemption.

If I see this and am sure, I call it.

I just don't think I see this from the 28' with 100% clarity -- I watched it 2-3 times here to be sure myself...and that's in my chair.

The player in question was also not the first to touch the ball.

Yeah, I'm really dumb. :o