Could I have done anything?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's my situation from last night's college game.

With about 6 minutes remaining in the 2nd half, Team A attempts a try, which is unsuccessful. Before either team gains control, A5 intentionally bats the ball into Team A's backcourt, where A1 is the first to touch the ball.

My partner at T (R on the game) blows the whistle for a backcourt violation.

As I start to walk to T to discuss it, my other partner (U1) gets there first and they discuss the play. Players are all still on the court, so I do not join the conversation. I am watching the players.

Whistle blows and U1 points toward Team A and moves back toward his position in the frontcourt. Ok, good.

R then says to me, "Team B ball!" and directs everyone to the other end of the court. U1 (never having gotten back to his original position) hustles to the other end and does not re-engage the R.

So what do I do here? We've already stopped the game once. We've had a long (too long) conversation. We've had confusion. And we've stayed with the original incorrect call.

Do I stop the game again? Do I take a crack at changing the R's mind? If I do this, don't I make the crew look worse? "Come on, make up your mind!"

What I actually did was nothing. In the confusion, I felt like I would just be extending the bad situation.

So at the next TO, I'm next to the U1 and ask what happened. He said the R was 100% that there was control. (In the locker room after the game, he said it was a controlled tap.) He wanted to stay with the call and he would take the responsibility for the call.

So here's my honest question. Should I have taken my turn at trying to change the R's mind?

The team that was called for the violation lost by 2.

You were correct in your actions. The R took responsibility for the call after a debate. Not a big deal. You could have done something else but in the end, the R took the call. Any reports made will indicate that. If there are any ramifications they would be very minor and you can walk away with your integrity. Usually that is the most important thing unless of course you are trying to climb the collegiate officiating ladder.

[Rich]

Sometimes you can be right....and you can be wrong.

At the point where you needed to make a decision, you made the right one. You couldn't send the teams to the benches and then get the crew together and then (possibly) have an argument with the R over the call. Sounds like he would've stuck with it.

There's a pretty famous YouTube video where I was faced with an official making an obviously incorrect decision and an obviously incorrect call. In the end, I decided to do what I felt was best and that was to get the ball back into play.

And it's up to over 95K views now.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sometimes you can be right....and you can be wrong.

At the point where you needed to make a decision, you made the right one. You couldn't send the teams to the benches and then get the crew together and then (possibly) have an argument with the R over the call. Sounds like he would've stuck with it.

There's a pretty famous YouTube video where I was faced with an official making an obviously incorrect decision and an obviously incorrect call. In the end, I decided to do what I felt was best and that was to get the ball back into play.

And it's up to over 95K views now.

95,001 now...I just went and watched it again!

[Camron Rust]

There is no such thing as a "controlled tap". The player either tapped the ball or the or the player caught the ball and threw it. The fact that the player was able to direct the ball where he desired on the tap is not relevant. A tap, by definition, does not create player control or team control.

The R either made an incorrect call based on incorrect understanding of the rules defining player and team control or made a correct call by misstating what he judged to have occurred.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no such thing as a "controlled tap". The player either tapped the ball or the or the player caught the ball and threw it. The fact that the player was able to direct the ball where he desired on the tap is not relevant. A tap, by definition, does not create player control or team control.

The R either made an incorrect call based on incorrect understanding of the rules defining player and team control or made a correct call by misstating what he judged to have occurred.

The definition of a pass actually has the word "bats" in it.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by CJP

The definition of a pass actually has the word "bats" in it.

All that means is that you can move the ball from one player to another without establishing player control. Which is exactly what happened in my play.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

All that means is that you can move the ball from one player to another without establishing player control. Which is exactly what happened in my play.

No. It means that your partner ruled the "intentional bat" a pass to a teammate in the backcourt.

Anyone using "tap" to say there is no team control need realize that this is not a "tap for a goal".

[Raymond]

There is no Team Control during a try. In order for a BC violation to occur PC needs to be established. How does batting a rebound fulfill the following?

Rule 4 Section 9. Control—Player, Team Art. 1. A player shall be in control when:
a. Holding a live ball; or
b. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.

Additionally, there is this, which is directly on point in regards to this conversation:

4-9 Art. 4. There shall be no team control during:
a. A jump ball;
b. The tapping of a rebound (unless it is a try for goal);
c. A try for goal after the ball is in flight;
d. The period that follows any of these acts (a-c) while the ball is being batted (from the vicinity of other players) in an attempt to secure control; or
e. A dead ball.

So what am I missing? Seriously wish folks would actually look up and read a rule before telling others what the rule is. We get enough misinformation in AAU and Summer ball locker rooms.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is no Team Control during a try. In order for a BC violation to occur PC needs to be established. How does batting a rebound fulfill the following?

Rule 4 Section 9. Control—Player, Team Art. 1. A player shall be in control when:
a. Holding a live ball; or
b. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.

Additionally, there is this, which is directly on point in regards to this conversation:

4-9 Art. 4. There shall be no team control during:
a. A jump ball;
b. The tapping of a rebound (unless it is a try for goal);
c. A try for goal after the ball is in flight;
d. The period that follows any of these acts (a-c) while the ball is being batted (from the vicinity of other players) in an attempt to secure control; or
e. A dead ball.

So what am I missing? Seriously wish folks would actually look up and read a rule before telling others what the rule is. We get enough misinformation in AAU and Summer ball locker rooms.

Rule 4 Section 12

Art 2...A team is in control of the ball:

b. While a live ball is being passed among teammates.

Rule 4 Section 31

A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player.

So if the "intentional" batting of the ball into the backcourt was to a teammate then this is a backcourt violation.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is no Team Control during a try. In order for a BC violation to occur PC needs to be established. How does batting a rebound fulfill the following?

Rule 4 Section 9. Control—Player, Team Art. 1. A player shall be in control when:
a. Holding a live ball; or
b. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.

Additionally, there is this, which is directly on point in regards to this conversation:

4-9 Art. 4. There shall be no team control during:
a. A jump ball;
b. The tapping of a rebound (unless it is a try for goal);
c. A try for goal after the ball is in flight;
d. The period that follows any of these acts (a-c) while the ball is being batted (from the vicinity of other players) in an attempt to secure control; or
e. A dead ball.

So what am I missing? Seriously wish folks would actually look up and read a rule before telling others what the rule is. We get enough misinformation in AAU and Summer ball locker rooms.

Maybe you should pay attention to the "from the vicinity of other players" part.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by CJP

No. It means that your partner ruled the "intentional bat" a pass to a teammate in the backcourt.

Anyone using "tap" to say there is no team control need realize that this is not a "tap for a goal".

This doesn't matter though. There was a try for goal. That ended team control until it is reestablished by a player securing player control. Intentional or not, tap or bat, the action by A5 does not give him player control, so by rule, there is no team control.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no such thing as a "controlled tap". The player either tapped the ball or the or the player caught the ball and threw it. The fact that the player was able to direct the ball where he desired on the tap is not relevant. A tap, by definition, does not create player control or team control.

Where's the "like" button?