Jump Ball, then . . .

[bucky]

Guess I must be misunderstanding something....

(presuming the blue jersey did not have control and this is not a defensive player situation)

Looks like BC violation to me. Actually seems quite obvious. The jump ball ended, player was in his FC, jumped, gained control of the ball, and landed in his BC. This was not a throw-in in which case that description would be legal. This is not the first player to touch the ball after the initial jump ball tap, in which case that description would also be legal.

Also not sure why BM said "Because there is no team control during the period immediately after a throwin," unless it was part of his question.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

The jump ball ended, player was in his FC, jumped, gained control of the ball, and landed in his BC. This was not a throw-in in which case that description would be legal. This is not the first player to touch the ball after the tap, in which case that description would also be legal.

Nice succinct interpretation, most very likely to be correct.

If one makes a "steal" does that automatically mean that the stealer was on defense? Don't answer that question on a written test, but rather, answer that question in a split second as one is preparing to get into proper position after a chaotic jump ball situation. A missed call on this play should not send these officials down to middle school purgatory.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice succinct interpretation, most very likely to be correct.

If one makes a "steal" does that automatically mean that the stealer was on defense? Don't answer that question on a written test, but rather, answer that question in a split second as one is preparing to get into proper position after a chaotic jump ball situation. A missed call on this play should not send these officials down to middle school purgatory.

Not sure why you are asking b/c to me, the OP (video) has nothing to do with a defensive steal.

Now, as for asking about a steal, I am not familiar with the definition of a steal as far as record keeping is concerned. I presume that somewhere, there are actual definitions for basketball terms as far as how they are scored. Items such as assists, points, rebounds, steals, etc. must be defined somewhere. I would presume that a steal carries a definition that resembles the defense taking the ball from the offensive. Now, how would it be scored if A2, in joking fashion, took the ball from A3? Would that be considered a steal as far as the stats are concerned? Consider about A1, who has 499 career steals. Coach A instructs A1 to pass the ball to A2 and then for A1 to take it from A2 in order to record his 500th "steal". I have seen players (low level and panic stricken) simply hold the ball and a teammate (far better skill-wise) come a take the ball. What would that be? Yikes!

Stats are such as gray area. If A1 passes to A2 and B1 intercepts the ball, is that considered a steal by B1, a turnover by A1, or both?

I do not think all this was your point but...I always wonder about how official stats are defined.

I did not feel that this was a "chaotic" JB situation. Yes, I know, easier said sitting in a chair watching a video. Can't argue with that. Now, if the call was missed, I also do not feel that, given the apparent level of play, the calling official would be sent to MS purgatory. It looks to me like a play that could really make an official stand out. The problem is that no coach would agree with the proper call b/c they do not know the rule. In other words, in this situation, doing the wrong thing is probably the best thing. The no-call results in no explanations/arguments/problems with anyone. The correct call would result in those things with someone and now you have a game starting on a bad note.....even though the correct call was made!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

The problem is that no coach would agree with the proper call b/c they do not know the rule ... The no-call results in no explanations/arguments/problems with anyone.

Coaches around here argue no calls as much as they argue calls. They just like to argue. We've got a few (not many, but a few) rule-knowledgeable, veteran coaches who would argue the incorrect no call in the video. Coaches. Can't officiate with them. Can't officiate without them. God put them there to make our life interesting.

[Nevadaref]

The correct call is a backcourt violation.
We have a player from White jumping into the air from his frontcourt, catching the ball, and landing with one foot in his backcourt.
This is a violation unless he qualifies for one of the three exceptions.

A. This is not a throw-in, so that one is out.

B. The jumpball ended when the ball was touched by a non-jumper, so the during a jumpball exception is out.

C. Blue merely batted the ball after the tapper. The touching by Blue never established control and would not have the AP arrow set in favor of
White, hence there is no team control by Blue which could make White a defensive player. Therefore, that exception is out as well.

We are left with the play remaining a backcourt violation.

[Nevadaref]

BTW to preemptively answer some follow-up questions...
Yes, I would call this violation.
Blue will get the ball for a throw-in AND the AP arrow will be set in Blue's favor.
Tough luck for White, but this is no different than if the player had landed with one foot out-of-bounds.
I hope that everyone on this forum would have called that and set the arrow in favor of Blue.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I hope that everyone on this forum would have called that and set the arrow in favor of Blue.

Before this Forum discussion, in the heat of the moment, in a real game (not observing here from the comfort of my chair), my split second decision would have been that it was a steal and a no call. Now I know that I would be wrong, but that would be my call (and it was my call the very first time that I watched the video).

Even though I now know that I would be wrong, by rule, I'm still not 100% convinced (but I am convinced to a lesser degree) that the intent and purpose of the exception would be to strictly define what playing "defense" is.