Another backcourt

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

Thanks. THat's helpful.

It reminds me of some posts here a long time ago to the effect of: For a BC violation to happen, it's not necessary that A touch the ball in the FC or that A touch the ball in the BC. Only that the ball reach the FC, and the BC an A is the last to touch before and first to touch after.

[HokiePaul]

Another reason to call this (and not ignore the rule) is that if you don't call it, you are putting your partner(s) in a tough position. If I'm the C on a play like this, there is a chance that I see the ball bounce in the BC. If I was 100% that the ball hit the BC, I'm coming to get this violation from the C if the T misses it or doesn't know the rule.

This isn't a judgement call/trust your partner call -- it's an obvious (although unusual) violation and I can't defend passing just because it's the Trail's line to call.

For those who are arguing not to call this, what would you do if your partner came and got it?