Another backcourt

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But your fruit is sour.

Simply put, you're wrong to argue this shouldn't be called. There is no argument for not call it any more than not calling a ball sailing OOB where A1 attempts to save it but it bounces on the sideline in doing so. The only difference is that in the division line case, team B is allowed to recover it and play on while team A isn't.

Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CJP

Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

Unfortunately, I’ve run into several officials with this kind of attitude. Specifically, those who state I’m not calling such and such because I don’t like it.
Mostly, I ignore them and they languish at the subvarsity level. For the occasional ones who make it to the varsity level, I use the block feature.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

Seriously, I don't care. I am not calling a violation in the described play.

You can and I am okay with that too.

Wow. Just wow. This isn't some quirk of the rules. Team A gets an advantage by using a larger space than they're allowed. Do you let them step on the OOB line too as long as it isn't too much?

How can we ever expect to have consistency when people like you consciously choose to set aside basic rules? Pathetic.

[deecee]

It's one thing to miss it like Billy says as it's a very close play with a lot of stuff going on. The other is to not call a violation that would give the other team the ball because you simply don't think it's "fair". There are moments, as an official, to apply "fair" to a game and the rules, but this, IMO, isn't one of them.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Wow. Just wow. This isn't some quirk of the rules. Team A gets an advantage by using a larger space than they're allowed. Do you let them step on the OOB line too as long as it isn't too much?

How can we ever expect to have consistency when people like you consciously choose to set aside basic rules? Pathetic.

1. This is not a "basic" rule situation.
2. I will probably never see this play and if I do, the chances that I will be standing at the division line to see the ball actually strike the line is even more unlikely. I am not going to be the guy who goes after that "quirky" play just to prove his rules knowledge.
3. Consistency? Don't be so dramatic. No calls on this play are not running rampant.

Have a great day guys. Thanks for the discussion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

White has the ball in their front court. W1 throws an errant pass to W2. The ball sails past W2 for the corner where the division line and the side line meet. Before the ball goes out of bounds or into the back court, W2 saves it behind her back. The ball hits on the division line with English, bounces on the division line, then bounces back into the front court where W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

Backcourt violation all day long. If in position, should be no harder to see than if a player stepped on the division line. Or no harder to see than if the ball hit the side or end line.

Not sure how such a simple ruling garnered so much discussion.

[sdoebler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfZYht9K0k

8:05 shows this play happening in an NBA game and being called.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfZYht9K0k

8:05 shows this play happening in an NBA game and being called.

It is not the same play described in the original post.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CJP

It is not the same play described in the original post.

What about it makes it enough different that you would not call the OP but (presumably) call the NBA play?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What about it makes it enough different that you would not call the OP but (presumably) call the NBA play?

The ball in the training video has backcourt status; which the narrator makes a point of.

The ball originally discussed has frontcourt status.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

The ball in the training video has backcourt status; which the narrator makes a point of.

The ball originally discussed has frontcourt status.

No, the ball has backcourt status when it bounces in the backcourt.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the ball has backcourt status when it bounces in the backcourt.

Sure does. It then has frontcourt status when it bounced back into the frontcourt, assuming the ball strikes the floor before it is touched by W1.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by CJP

Sure does. It then has frontcourt status when it bounced back into the frontcourt, assuming the ball strikes the floor before it is touched by W1.

What surprises me in this discussion is that you seem to believe that the defensive team won't know this was a violation. In my experience watching games, players and coaches are well aware that offensive team bouncing the ball on the midcourt line results in a BC violation. Maybe the players and coaches here are just smarter than where you are . . .

[Valley Man]

You are right Raymond .. I amended my original post

White has the ball in their front court. W1 throws an errant pass to W2. The ball sails past W2 for the corner where the division line and the side line meet. Before the ball goes out of bounds or into the back court, W2 saves it behind her back. The ball hits on the division line with English, bounces on the division line, then bounces back into the front court striking the floor once before W1 recovers the ball. No other player touched it. Ruling?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by CJP

Sure does. It then has frontcourt status when it bounced back into the frontcourt, assuming the ball strikes the floor before it is touched by W1.

Partially correct. If the player that touches the ball first when it has "frontcourt" status was on the same team (offense) that was last to touch it when it gained "backcourt" status then the ball still is considered part of the "backcourt" (silly logic) and is a violation.

Where, when, how many times the ball bounces has little/no bearing on the status and violation when the ball is touched in relation to "frontcourt".