Another backcourt

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CJP

I am not calling a violation on this play. I think the intent of the rule is that the player should be in the backcourt during the touch to be a violation.

The intent is that the offense play within the 42' x 50' (FED, and I'm not getting hung up on the width of the division line) rectangle that defines the front court (while also not prematurely killing the play that would give the defense an advantage).

They didn't.

Call the violation.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The intent is that the offense play within the 42' x 50' (FED, and I'm not getting hung up on the width of the division line) rectangle that defines the front court (while also not prematurely killing the play that would give the defense an advantage).

They didn't.

Call the violation.

No players left the frontcourt and the ball has frontcourt status when recovered. I am not worried about the repercussions of not calling this a violation.

[SNIPERBBB]

Once the ball touches the backcourt after being last touched by the offense, they cant touch the ball again until its touched by the defense.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by CJP

No players left the frontcourt and the ball has frontcourt status when recovered. I am not worried about the repercussions of not calling this a violation.

What about a ball that hits the sideline but the player who last touched it doesn't leave the court?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by zm1283

What about a ball that hits the sideline but the player who last touched it doesn't leave the court?

You are trying to compare an apple to an orange. Both fruit but still different.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

You are trying to compare an apple to an orange. Both fruit but still different.

But your fruit is sour.

Simply put, you're wrong to argue this shouldn't be called. There is no argument to 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.

[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.

[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.