NCAA Vid Request - Sat 3/17 - Kent. vs Buff - BC violation?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by bucky

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.