The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   NCAA Vid Request - Sat 3/17 - Kent. vs Buff - BC violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/103688-ncaa-vid-request-sat-3-17-kent-vs-buff-bc-violation.html)

bob jenkins Mon Mar 19, 2018 09:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByRule (Post 1019273)
Raymond is correct.
NCAA M and NFHS are different- NCAA M changed rule on a deflected ball by the defense while the ball has front court status anyone can retrieve if the ball goes in the backcourt. Regardless of last to touch first to touch.
In the OP (and based on subsequent posts) the ball *may not* have been in the FC when it was deflected -- so, based on this (and my subsequent reading of the rule), it may still have been a BC violation (depending, perhaps, on the loss of control / dribble issue).

In any event, if it takes all this to decide, then the official was correct -- no matter what the zapruder film shows. ;)

bucky Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByRule (Post 1019273)
Raymond is correct.
NCAA M and NFHS are different- NCAA M changed rule on a deflected ball by the defense while the ball has front court status anyone can retrieve if the ball goes in the backcourt. Regardless of last to touch first to touch.
As Bob said, ball was deflected while defender in BC and ball in BC. Rule change irrelevant as ball never had FC status until offensive player touched it. Really need that video.

Raymond Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:39am
Bumping to see if Jeff can find the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

JRutledge Sat Mar 24, 2018 02:20pm
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J7Z54M6qaTM" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

bucky Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:03am
Perfect, can't wait to hear from everybody. Very close but I am going with BC violation. Offensive player, not dribbling, has 2 feet in his FC, reaches and touches ball (giving ball FC status), and ball lands in BC where same player is first to touch it.

Raymond Sun Mar 25, 2018 07:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1019683)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J7Z54M6qaTM" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace
He never dribbled in the front Court.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

bucky Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1019711)
He never dribbled in the front Court.
What is your point? There is no requirement of dribbling in the FC for a BC violation.

Raymond Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1019724)
What is your point? There is no requirement of dribbling in the FC for a BC violation.
On this play there is.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

JRutledge Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1019724)
What is your point? There is no requirement of dribbling in the FC for a BC violation.
If you have an interrupted dribble and you never established the ball in the FC, it can matter in this situation.

Now the question does him not dribbling in the FC matter in this specific play. I think there is a case to be made that this could be a violation if you feel the play was with a FC player making the ball touch the BC. But I think that is a stretch. The defender tipped the ball away which allows for no longer have a cheap violation.

Peace

bucky Sun Mar 25, 2018 02:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1019732)
If you have an interrupted dribble and you never established the ball in the FC, it can matter in this situation.

Now the question does him not dribbling in the FC matter in this specific play. I think there is a case to be made that this could be a violation if you feel the play was with a FC player making the ball touch the BC. But I think that is a stretch. The defender tipped the ball away which allows for no longer have a cheap violation.

Peace
I understand if ball was never established in the FC but in the play, the ball was established in the FC.

JRutledge Sun Mar 25, 2018 03:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1019746)
I understand if ball was never established in the FC but in the play, the ball was established in the FC.
When the defender tips the ball away, it does not matter what status the ball has from my understanding. The point is to give the offense some leeway to get the ball. I think the rules are not as clear, but the point of the new rule was not to allow a "cheap" violation if the defense made a play on the ball. That clearly took place here.

Peace

bucky Sun Mar 25, 2018 04:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1019752)
When the defender tips the ball away, it does not matter what status the ball has from my understanding. The point is to give the offense some leeway to get the ball. I think the rules are not as clear, but the point of the new rule was not to allow a "cheap" violation if the defense made a play on the ball. That clearly took place here.

Peace
Defender hit the ball while it was in the BC. As far as defense tipping ball, defender tip was irrelevant for rule as offense still had two feet in FC and touched ball giving ball FC status. Then he was first to touch it in BC.

Gonna have to just agree to disagree on this thread.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1