Video Request

[KCRC]

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]

Here is the play.



Peace

[Rich]

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by KCRC

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]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by bucky

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

If the foot comes back down in the front court, it's a travel.

Travel.

[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.