9-9....?

[Freddy]

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

[Rich]

Are you speaking on a theoretical level?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

Correct answer and correct reasons.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Ok. I was wrong.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correct answer and correct reasons.

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.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

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.

[jTheUmp]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

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

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

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