Video Request

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I would bet they say that his foot was down in the FC. That's the only way to have a BC violation here.

If his foot was down in the FC then it's an obvious travel. I felt he traveled already in the BC.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If his foot was down in the FC then it's an obvious travel. I felt he traveled already in the BC.

That's my point. The only way to justify a BC call is to say the foot was down, which now means they kicked a travel call.

[rockyroad]

While ball handler is in the air, White #2 has his hand on the ball and both feet in the FC. Is that enough to establish FC status? That's the only thing I can see here that would lead to a BC call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

While ball handler is in the air, White #2 has his hand on the ball and both feet in the FC. Is that enough to establish FC status? That's the only thing I can see here that would lead to a BC call.

No, that would not be enough to establish FC status....when two players are touching the ball and one is in the backcourt, the ball is in the backcourt.

The assertion is that the ball handler, after jumping, landed in the FC before breaking contact with the ball on the pass. I believe that is correct.

As such, it was a travel (or should have been) but it was certainly a backcourt violation. Ultimately, the right team got the ball.