Backcourt Violation called (Video) - Was this the right call?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Technically he travelled.

All those who criticize college officials for missing spin move travels I know would have called a travel on this play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Why do you write "technically"? He traveled. Period.
I am 100% that I whistle that. I'm looking closely at his landing on such a play so seeing the extra step should be easy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

He traveled. Period. I am 100% that I whistle that. I'm looking closely at his landing on such a play so seeing the extra step should be easy.

Agree. However, as the trail I would have been so intent on instantly determining that this was a backcourt exception, that I may have overlooked the travel. I would hope that I would catch it, but may have been distracted by the bang bang exception.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. However, as the trail I would have been so intent on instantly determining that this was a backcourt exception, that I may have overlooked the travel. I would hope that I would catch it, but may have been distracted by the bang bang exception.

I would hazard to guess that many officials would do the same. They would be so excited to know the rule explicitly, not call a violation, and overlook the obvious travel. Everyone (coaches/players/spectators) else would be doing the same. They would anxiously be waiting for the BC ruling that most would not realize such an obvious travel.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

I would hazard to guess that many officials would do the same. They would be so excited to know the rule explicitly, not call a violation, and overlook the obvious travel. Everyone (coaches/players/spectators) else would be doing the same. They would anxiously be waiting for the BC ruling that most would not realize such an obvious travel.

Ignore the potential backcourt violation. I see officials not call that move a travel frequently....without anything else complicating things.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Ignore the potential backcourt violation. I see officials not call that move a travel frequently....without anything else complicating things.

Yep. I think that "we" tend to give a little more than the strict reading of the rules allow when a player catches a pass and sometimes when they come to a stop on a (moving) dribble.

[Matt S.]

As a friend and high-level official likes to say, 'don't go looking for boogers.'

If you're calling anything on this, it's a booger.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yep. I think that "we" tend to give a little more than the strict reading of the rules allow when a player catches a pass and sometimes when they come to a stop on a (moving) dribble.

"We" includes me. If it isn't 100% obvious and certain...no travel. If there is a gray area with regards to whether the player had "caught" the ball or not, the player didn't catch the ball.

[ilyazhito]

That's why I wouldn't have a travel. The player touched the ball in the frontcourt, but only controlled it in the backcourt. There must be player control for both a backcourt violation and for traveling, and since there was no player control, neither rule was violated.

[#olderthanilook]

RE: traveling violation - does the T have the proper angle that allows him to definitively see the status of the ball and player control? I'm not certain he does from what this video reveals. And, that's essential when determining if a traveling violation occurs. I'm not even sure the C has a good secondary look.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

RE: traveling violation - does the T have the proper angle that allows him to definitively see the status of the ball and player control? I'm not certain he does from what this video reveals. And, that's essential when determining if a traveling violation occurs. I'm not even sure the C has a good secondary look.

It's also essential to ruling a BC violation on a throw-in.