The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Video Request (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/102291-video-request.html)

KCRC Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:51am

Video Request
 
Iowa State @ Texas Tech last night (8:00pm CST on ESPNU). Difficult backcourt violation in traffic with 1 second left in regulation of tie game. There was an official's review to put time back on the clock after the violation. I'm assuming backcourt violations are not reviewable under NCAA rules. NCAA officials please confirm.

JRutledge Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:42am

Here is the play.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SjbMPI5qjLk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Rich Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:54am

Interesting play.

(1) If the foot comes back down in the front court, it's a travel.
(2) If it doesn't, it's nothing -- backcourt status followed by backcourt status.

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of time to look at this right now - just a first reaction.

Anyone else see it this way?

BigCat Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1000800)
Interesting play.

(1) If the foot comes back down in the front court, it's a travel.
(2) If it doesn't, it's nothing -- backcourt status followed by backcourt status.

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of time to look at this right now - just a first reaction.

Anyone else see it this way?

I see it the same way.

JRutledge Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1000800)
Interesting play.

(1) If the foot comes back down in the front court, it's a travel.
(2) If it doesn't, it's nothing -- backcourt status followed by backcourt status.

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of time to look at this right now - just a first reaction.

Anyone else see it this way?

I agree with you and he might have traveled before the he left the floor.

Peace

bucky Tue Feb 21, 2017 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCRC (Post 1000795)
I'm assuming backcourt violations are not reviewable under NCAA rules. NCAA officials please confirm.

Correct.

Bang bang play. Any way you look at it, the officials were incorrect. If dribbler's foot down in FC, travel. If not, no BC violation. Interestingly, both T and C have same BC call. That indicates to me that the dribbler's foot probably did not touch FC, otherwise at least one of T or C would have a travel. Then, it is hard to believe that both T and C got the BC violation incorrect. Would have liked to hear their post game conversation regarding what each saw.

SNIPERBBB Tue Feb 21, 2017 01:30pm

This looks to be an anticipation call and they forgot about the passer's location.

JRutledge Tue Feb 21, 2017 01:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1000805)
This looks to be an anticipation call and they forgot about the passer's location.

Maybe they did not forget, they think he landed in the FC. There is a lot we do not know about this play honestly unless the officials tell us what they saw.

Peace

OKREF Tue Feb 21, 2017 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1000800)
Interesting play.

(1) If the foot comes back down in the front court, it's a travel.
(2) If it doesn't, it's nothing -- backcourt status followed by backcourt status.

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of time to look at this right now - just a first reaction.

Anyone else see it this way?

yes

OKREF Tue Feb 21, 2017 01:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1000804)
Correct.

Bang bang play. Any way you look at it, the officials were incorrect. If dribbler's foot down in FC, travel. If not, no BC violation. Interestingly, both T and C have same BC call. That indicates to me that the dribbler's foot probably did not touch FC, otherwise at least one of T or C would have a travel. Then, it is hard to believe that both T and C got the BC violation incorrect. Would have liked to hear their post game conversation regarding what each saw.

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

BillyMac Tue Feb 21, 2017 03:54pm

Before Backcourt ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1000800)
If the foot comes back down in the front court, it's a travel.

Travel.

Raymond Tue Feb 21, 2017 04:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 1000808)
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 Tue Feb 21, 2017 04:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 1000819)
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 Tue Feb 21, 2017 05:19pm

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 Tue Feb 21, 2017 07:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 1000826)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1