Could I have done anything?
 

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.

My thoughts...
 

First, let me say this is a tough play - and judgment rules the day with respect to 'controlled tap.'

In my pregames, we always talk about bringing information when you're on the floor, not back in the locker room. That said, if you were going to bring your information, it should've been during the crew conference, not a 2nd conference.

I think what you did was right - because your partners assumed (correctly) you didn't have an opinion on the play since you didn't join the conversation. If you had something, no harm in sending players to their benches while the three of you discuss.

Does a player have to "control" the ball to make it "intentionally" go somewhere?

No. (except where defined by rule, as in a tap for a basket)

So is this a judgment call as to whether the tap was sufficiently controlled to warrant determining team control in the front court? What do you rely on for that judgment?

Could a pass or rebound be "tapped" by a player to teammate who scores and get credit for an assist?

I absolutely did have an opinion. But it was so obviously an incorrect call that I (stupidly) assumed that my U1 was going to bring the information and the call would be corrected.

I should have sent the teams to the benches and been part of the original conversation, but I honestly didn't think my input would be necessary. Again, stupidly.

The question for me is what should/could I have done after the initial conference.

Nobody in stripes could care less who gets credit for an assist. The real question on this type of play is "would you grant a TO to a player who is "tapping" the ball to a teammate?".

There is a correlation. If you can't see it then stick to your back court violation. It is the safe call but I am not convinced it is the correct call. Either way, I would not worry about stopping a game to convince my partner. I would back him up on either call.

What is the correlation that you're referring to?

I don't know about safe, but it was definitely NOT the correct call.

Three officials should not be conferencing at the same time unless the teams are at their benches. So by the time he realized what was going on it is way too late to send the teams to their benches.

If this were the last two or three minutes of the game I would do so. But in this situation I'm going to let the crew chief live with his call.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Sounds like you have it all figured out then.

If I think a player intentionally batted the ball into the backcourt, that would probably be enough for me to say he had control, maybe... Just my thought...

I think the only thing you could've done was send the team's to the benches and join the initial conference once you saw how long it was taking. That being said, it sounds like even if you did that, the official who made the call was convinced that the tap established "control" and was not going to change the call. The last thing we want is an argument on the floor. Did either coach say anything? What did the film show? Did you send it to your coordinator for his/her opinion? Information was brought to the official who made the call and he decided to not accept the information. That is about all you could do.

So you are saying that if A2 bats the ball away from B2 during the course of rebounding action, you would call a violation when A1 retrieves the ball from the back court?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Where's the "like" button?

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".

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.

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.

By definition a tap is not control. The player would have to catch and hold the ball with one hand in order to establish control. Obviously, you know that or you wouldn't have posted this situation. So your real question is about how to deal with an incorrect rules decision by a partner because that person has an improper understanding.
There is t much that you can do. You can only advise him as to what you believe is the proper ruling and then allow him to either reverse or stick with his call. In your case a member of the crew did come to him and give him the opportunity to change the call. It doesn't matter if it was you or the other guy. Had you done it and he refused to change would you have wanted your third to come over and get involved?
Let the R stick with his call and his incorrect rules knowledge will get highlighted by a coach sending in the play to the league office/commissioner/supervisor. If the supervisor then tells him that he is wrong, he will change. That's about the only thing that will alter his thinking.
Games aren't called perfectly. We have to accept that. We can't do our partners jobs for them. We don't get their game checks!

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.

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

When was player control established in this play? I'll wait.

Hmmm, so A5 was standing all by himself, saw a rebound coming his way, and decided to bat the ball away from only himself?

1.) It is not required (for the backcourt violation)
2.) A player who passes the ball without establishing player control just pulled off a neat trick.

Now I just feel bad for you.

The part your missing is that team control may "continue" while the ball is being passed but it doesn't begin until a player holds or dribbles the ball inbounds. It has to begin by one of those two acts before it becomes a pass....the pass assumes it came from player control.

When I read through all of the responses in this thread, I knew that you would cite this rule. What you fail to grasp is that a pass does not establish team control, it only continues it if it already exists. You are only looking at part of the rule instead of the whole thing.

Team control has three parts: 1. establishment, 2. continuation, 3. termination

Batting or tapping the ball cannot establish team control. Only holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds can do that.

1. Establishment of player & team control inbounds absolutely is required for the backcourt violation!
May I direct you to the POE on page 69 of the NFHS Rules Book from this season for you to read?
"With specific regard to the backcourt violation, a team may not be the last to touch a live ball in the front court and then be the first to touch a live ball in the backcourt, provided that team has established player control/team control on the playing court (either in the backcourt or frontcourt).

There are only two ways to establish player control: holding or dribbling the ball. Passing is not a method to establish player control and that is why you are incorrect about this play.

2. It's purely definitional, but definitely possible. Batting a rebound to a teammate is one example. It also happens during a throw-in pass. There used to be no team control at all during throw-ins, now there is a specific throw-in team control only for fouls, which does not pertain to backcourt violations. Some people refer to this as a false or fake team control.

You beat me to this point while I was crafting my post.
Correct, as usual, Camron. Have a great season!

If it is impossible to establish team control by batting the ball to a teammate after a try, why does the NFHS casebook have to explicitly spell out that no team is in control after a try, nor during the period which follows this act while the ball is slapped AWAY from other players in an attempt to secure the ball? Is it because when the ball is batted to a teammate it is a pass and established team control?

According to Rule 9 Section 9 Art 1, no player control is required for a backcourt violation to occur.

You have front court team control (bats to a teammate), A5 is the last to touch in the front court, A1 is the first to touch in the back court.

B5 goes up for a defensive rebound and bats the ball up and toward a teammate over in the corner of the court. When do you start your :10 backcourt count?
It appears according to your analysis of team control the count starts with the tap meaning the backcourt count could be at 2 or maybe 3 by the time the team mate catches the ball in the corner.

And to have frontcourt team control, there must first have been player control. That is how team control is established.

If team control were established on a bat, we'd have a lot of team control fouls on rebounds as players bat the ball in an attempt to get the rebound. In fact, what if two players bat it? Are both teams in control?

I would hardly say that in your scenario that there is a specific target.

You did not answer my question about the explicit text in the casebook.

Your questions are really not applicable if there is no reason to believe that the player was attempting to pass the ball to a teammate.

Where does it say that you HAVE to establish player control to establish team control? This make a descent argument against that.

The teammate in the corner is not a specific target? Again, when would you start your back court count?

1.) Player and team control is needed to start the count.
2.) If the ball was batted so high that it took 3 seconds to reach the target 25 feet away then I would not say it was specifically intended to target that individual. You can but I won't.

Then how can you say A5's batting a rebound all the way into the back court was specifically intended for A1? By the way, in my situation I'm not starting the back court count until the teammate establishes player/team control when he catches the ball just as in the OP. When A5 bats a rebound all the way into the back court, player/team control did not begin until A1 recovered the ball. No violation, just the start of a back court count.

1. By the time the ball reaches the corner in your hypothetical situation, there would be multiple players there.
2. There has not been enough detail provided about the intentional batting of the ball in the OP. I am saying it is possible to have a backcourt violation. Others are saying it is impossible.
3. Of course you would not start your 10 count until there was player contol in the backcourt in your b5 rebounding situation. That is the rule.

It is a fundamental concept of the rules.

Here, for one:

Here is another, form the fundamentals at the front and in Rule 4:

That pretty much says that it stays with the prior team until the new team establishes player control. It wouldn't be any different from a situation with no team control.

It is not a fundamental concept that you must have player control before establishing team control. There are 20 fundamental rules. This is not one.

Art 5 does not overrule Art 2. Art 2 says that you have team control during a pass.

You still did not answer my question about the casebook comment.

Edit: I am going to yield that you are correct about player control first then team control. I am sticking to my argument that batting the ball to a teammate (passing) established the player control.

How so? The 10 count is about team control, not player control. If there is team control, the 10 count starts the instant the ball goes into the backcourt. If, as you say, a bat starts team control, then it would start on a ball batted to the backcourt on a rebound. And if it were to another player, it would have to be a backcourt violation. But it isn't.

Just trust me, you can't have team control without having had player control first. That is rules 101.

As for your casebook reference, they have to spell it out that way because some people will try to insist there is team control when there has never been player control. That just is not the case.

Rule 9 Section 8. Paste it here for people to read and decide when to count. Then I can decide if I should trust you.

Not really relevant to this discussion, but if you insist....

Rule 9-8
You can't have player control without also having team control, so all you really need to know with respect to the 10 count is that when there team control with the ball in the backcourt the count starts. There may or may not be player control too but it is completely irrelevant. The part about player control in that rule could be left out and it wouldn't change anything whatsoever.

Again....team control starts with player control, always. Batting the ball, even to another player, despite how much you want to twist the wording of the rules, does not constitute the start of player control. That phrase, as you've been told, only means to say that team control continues even when the ball is being passed.

Is there a troll meme we can throw out there?

Dude is obviously not an official, or a very very poor one who is incapable of interpreting a rulebook.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

4-12-5 explains that 4-12-2 does not apply during rebounding. 4-12-5 is there specifically so people don't do what you are trying to do. It specifies (pretty clearly at that) the circumstances that allow team control to be re-established when it has been ended by rule.

By rule, there is no team control once the ball has become loose on a tap or try for goal until player control has been reestablished.

I'll be the first to argue that the basketball rules are poorly written (I still haven't found a rule that actually awards the first free throw in the 1 and 1, only the rule that awards the second if the first is successful). However, this issue is fairly clear if you'd actually look at what people are showing you instead of focusing on trying not to be proven wrong.

So now you are saying parts of the rules could be left out to fit your narrative. Got it. I see a pattern here.

There is a difference between touching a rebound and batting a rebound to a teammate. That is the foundation of the argument.

4.5 does not apply because it is not a "touch". 4.2b. applies because it is a pass.

I may have not been an official very long but I am willing to ask questions and get better. I am getting something from this. Your insult really shows what kind of person you are. I do not want to partner up with anyone who thinks they know it all.

No, there's not. That's what 4-12-5 is telling you, but it seems to be a rule you want to leave out.

Then, frankly, you wouldn't want to partner with yourself.

Asking questions and discussing an actual issue is not acting like I know it all. Insulting people about it does.

Insisting that you're the only person correctly reading the rules when everyone else is telling you you're wrong is. And that's what you're doing. And frankly, it does look a lot like trolling.

Okay. Then I am done.

You win the Internets today.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that has this problem. :D

Life's much nicer when you stop agonizing over these things and just go work games.

Took me 25 years (of my 31) to get there, but I couldn't possibly care about rulebook mistakes anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

No agony at all here. I have just always found it odd.

The only thing I might have done differently is to ask my partner what was the result? Then if they told me they had decided it was a "controlled tap" then I might have let it go. If they told me something else, I might still have had the conversation. A lot too would have been based on how well I know and respect my partners. Some partners I just know that it would not matter or that they discussed the right things. It would likely be a play I would discuss after the game or at halftime if it took place in the first half for more clarification.

Peace