I would rather worry about when PC is established than who touched it last.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Nothing wrong with you liking the interpretation, but it often was a confusing rule for many involved and to me why not be in step with every other level in this minor area of the game?

Subjective how? If the defense deflects the ball, all bets are off to how the ball got to the backcourt in NCAA Rules. I hope and pray that is what the NF is doing or we will have another silly distinction that will have to explain when the defense deflects the ball.

But the new rule/language does not say anything about an exception to the rule if the offensive player is the one that deflects the ball. And this is why a few of us think this either has to be the NCAA rule or they worded this so poorly that all they did is create other issues. Now only interpretations can clear this up at this point. And even if this new rule was made to clear up one interpretation, then this was a lot to change one interpretation that could have just been changed with just getting rid of that interpretation in the first place.

Peace

That would mean someone would have to admit they were wrong. This way, by calling it a rule change, they can be right all along. :/

Until we have all the information including interpretation, we honestly have no idea what old interpretation was cleared up. It is possible that they could stick to the same interpretation and have changed part of the rule. Even the NCAA rule had to be clarified so that it was clear what was changed last year.

Peace

Objective/Subjective ...
 

As much as I hate to comment on NCAA rules, that I know absolutely nothing about, I believe I know why some Forum members believe that there is some subjective criteria in the NCAA rule. All bets may not be off if the defense deflects a ball and it somehow goes into the backcourt. NCAA rules: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball away from A1. A1 attempts to gain control of the ball, maybe he gains player control, maybe he doesn't gain player control. The ball then heads into the backcourt, where its picked up by A2.

The subjective part is the official deciding, in a possibly bang bang play, whether A1 had regained player control (backcourt), or hadn't regained player control (no backcourt).

Of course we make these objective/subjective calls all the time in a game, so it's difficult to figure out if it's an objective call (like stepping on a boundary line), or subjective call (like gaining an illegal advantage on a foul).

One official's objective call may be another's subjective call. Sometimes they just blend together.

NFHS: 2 players on the ground and then all of a sudden the ball spurts free towards the division line and I don't know who touched it last. If the balls goes OOB, the play is dead and I can ask for help. If the ball heads towards the division line do I kill the play after PC and ask for help? At the college level I don't have to worry about who touched it last.

If you are really in doubt, treat it as an inadvertent whistle sitation, and follow that procedure (AP if no team control, award to the team "in control", which would be A, if the ball were to remain inbounds). However, this situation will be unlikely in a real game.

I Know More About Dark Matter Than I Know About NCAA Rules ...
 

My high school game, if as the trail, I don't know who touched it last, I'm not making a backcourt violation call. I try to only make calls that I'm sure about.

The out of bounds is different. I will sound my whistle to stop the clock, and not make a direction call. If my partner can't help me, then there is a rule that allows me to go the alternating possession arrow. There is no such rule for a unsure backcourt call, and only a backcourt call will stop the clock.

My post was not to reject, or defend, the NCAA backcourt rule, it was just my guess as to why some Forum members may feel that there is some subjective aspect to the rule.

So I'm guessing about something that I don't know anything about.

Take my opinion, and $1.69, and that will get you a large cup of black coffee at McDonald's.

OK, but don't you have to make similar decisions if you were to grant a timeout or start a closely guarded count? What is subjective if you get the ball and have player control, a player taking the ball to the BC on your own? And again if they clarify the language or give an interpretation that supports their position (if they are actually adopting the NCAA Rules) then there is nothing subjective.

The rule before this change was subjective too. Often it was very difficult to determine who actually last touched the ball. So why is this so hard? I really do not get that logic at all!!!! And it would be so close in many cases that officials would call nothing because they could not determine who the ball last went off of or even who got to the ball first in the backcourt.

OK, but the rule does not make anything less objective or more subjective. The NCAA Rule is the NCAA rule. If you do not understand it, then just say that. But to not suggest that that rule would make what we have had as more complicated. The NCAA rule made the decision easier to judge.

Peace

He was not suggesting you blow the whistle. But if you have no violation, you do not do anything, but you might not see who the ball actually went off of in many situations near the division line. And if you blow your whistle, you might cause other issues. Also, the situation is not unlikely that Raymond referenced, many plays are that close or crosses coverage areas.

Peace

Decisions ...
 

That's my exact point. We make these subjective decisions all the time during a game. They become second nature to us.

Player control can be, and often is, a very easy ruling to make, but sometimes it isn't, and thus may become subjective. Many here on the Forum have used the "Would I grant a timeout request?" for a player control ruling, which goes a step beyond if the player is dribbling or holding the ball. Even the determination of a dribble can be a subjective decision. Is it intentional, or is the player just making a desperate uncontrolled tap at the ball?

I agree that the NCAA backcourt rule has less loopholes, but some part of it can still be subjective in certain specific circumstances. "After the deflection did player control occur before the ball went into the backcourt?" can be slightly subjective, especially using the "Would I grant a timeout request?" on a bang bang play.

I never said that, all I did was guess about why some Forum members believe that there may be a subjective aspect to some, really only a few, backcourt rulings.

I do not consider the first touch, last touch BC to be subjective. It is a judgment call because you have to see it, but it is not always clear.

Either way, the NCAA took away an element of that call and the most controversial part too. We will just have to see. But then again this is just arguing over an irrelevant point anyway. Why does anyone care about what is subjective or not?

Peace

My point is I don't want to have to blow my whistle and then say it was inadvertent.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

OK, the NFHS rule (now) allows you to not make a backcourt violation call if the ball was deflected by B. If no one touched the ball before it squirted loose, and A previously controlled the ball in the frontcourt, and it was recovered in the backcourt by A, violation. If no one touched the ball before it squirted loose, and A had control of the ball in its backcourt, and the ball goes into B's backcourt, where it is picked up by B, no violation. If there was a deflection by B prior to the ball going to A's backcourt, no call. When in doubt, don't make a backcourt call.

Good, because it isn't.....it is primarily objective with the possible exception of determining whether there was team control or not.
A judgement call IS a subjective call. Judgement is not seeing or not seeing, it is seeing and having the option to decide whether if was an infraction or not....aka subjective.

Not seeing is just not seeing.