Communication sitch - Over/back

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

JR,
...Because it was pre-gamed.
...Because my partner came so far.
...Because if I stick with my call my partner looks stoopid.
...Because this was one turn-over reversed in the first half.
...Because I am un-emotional.
...Because presence overcame the Rule.

This was a half-time, off the court discussion.

mick [/B]

Mmmmmm....I dunno Mick. Like you I like to think if my partner comes to me with new information he's saving us from making a bad call. The way I pregame this is to agree we'll *discuss* something that might have been missed ("Mick, are you sure you got a good look?" or "Mick, did you see the ball go off B1?") and the calling official decides. There are those times when the calling official knows he's right, either because of a rules misunderstanding or because he saw something the other guy didn't. Seems to me the best way to have handled your sitch would have been to put your arm around your pard's shoulder, walk him away from the bench and just say "I got this one, pard, thanks for coming all the way out to help". Look at it this way: at least 1 coach knew you got this right originally, most likely both coaches knew you had the right call, and now both coaches know you let your partner overturn your correct call...I dunno, can't see how this gets chalked up to game management or presence.

BTW, I'm not sure I agree there aren't times when you'll need a rules discussion, just don't make it too often.

[canuckrefguy]

I'm thinking I misread the details of the play here...

I defer to the rest of you.

[stan-MI]

Although you got the call right and my prior post advised you to stick to your guns, on further thought my decision would depend on time, score and situation. If it's a meaningless call, go with your partner's call and get the ball back in play. In a close game in the fourth quarter, get it right.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by mick

This was a half-time, off the court discussion.

I admire that you did it this way. I'm not sure I could have knowingly made the incorrect call...presence or no presence. I would have been inclined to make the correct call while explaining to the coaches that my partner was correct in telling me that white tipped the ball but didn't see blue touch the ball before she committed the BC violation. I wouldn't have made it a "rules discussion" issue, rather, I would have made it an "incomplete information" issue.

How long have you been partners with this other official? I can see doing it your way only if this was one of the first times you've worked together. What if the white coach had said, "Mick, I know you know the rule! You got the call correct! I saw the whole thing! Why are you changing it?" What would you have answered?

[mick]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref

I admire that you did it this way. I'm not sure I could have knowingly made the incorrect call...presence or no presence. I would have been inclined to make the correct call while explaining to the coaches that my partner was correct in telling me that white tipped the ball but didn't see blue touch the ball before she committed the BC violation. I wouldn't have made it a "rules discussion" issue, rather, I would have made it an "incomplete information" issue.

How long have you been partners with this other official? I can see doing it your way only if this was one of the first times you've worked together. What if the white coach had said, "Mick, I know you know the rule! You got the call correct! I saw the whole thing! Why are you changing it?" What would you have answered?

Indy_Ref,
I have worked with this partner a few times this year and a polite number of games over the years.

As far as explaining the rules, that's what I would have done with the coach (probably, coaches), had partner stayed away.
mick

[Indy_Ref]

Indy_Ref,
I have worked with this partner a few times this year and a polite number of games over the years.

As far as explaining the rules, that's what I would have done with the coach (probably, coaches), had partner stayed away.
mick

I hope this is the first (and last) time this happens to you. My college assigner says, "No matter what happens, get the call right. Beat the tape!" I would not (could not) have changed my call had I known that the tape was going to prove me wrong.

It sounds like you were 100% sure of what you saw. Is that true? If so, do NOT make the change. If you weren't 100%, then I guess that would help me understand it better.

[SamIAm]

Mick, I am changing your sitch slightly,

Blue ball in front court.
White bats ball toward division line.
Ball bounces three times in front court and bounces over division line (but not on BC floor).
Running in front court (towards back court), Blue 14 bats ball to floor in back court (but back towards Blues the front court) and ball bounces in front court once before
B25 gains possesion of the batted ball in the front court.

I tried to word this to happen as a play I was involved in during a pick-up game. No question was raised, but it made me think, here is that sitch:

After a made basket, Ball inbounded to B1 who is standing just passed the mid-court line and is facing his back court, the pass was low and B1 short hopped it
off his hands then chest (creating backspin). Ball bounced into his backcourt, then backspin brought ball back to B1 in his front court.

I am up on NCAA rules only. They say (paraphrased a bit): a back court violation ocurrs when the frontcourt team is first to touch the ball in it's backcourt if the front court team caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

In my two sitch's I have no violation.

Comments?

[Hawks Coach]

As I read it, your only change to Mick sitch in your first case is that the ball comes back to the f/c before blue touches. This is irrelevant. Blue cannot be first to touch after it has gone b/c, regardless of it's current position. Think of the case where white never touches, blue attempts to save it from going b/c, blue's save attempt bounces b/c then goes f/c. It is the equivalent to your case, and it is a b/c violation.

Your second situation is not a violation because the inbounding team never had team control in the b/c. The fact that it returned to the f/c is irrelevant in this case. Pass receiver can be f/c, have ball bounce off body, hands, etc., (as long as there is no player control established on the touch), ball go b/c, and receiver or teammate retrieve the ball from the b/c. No violation.

so you had it right in this case, but for the wrong reason.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by SamIAm
I am up on NCAA rules only. They say (paraphrased a bit): a back court violation ocurrs when the frontcourt team is first to touch the ball in it's backcourt if the front court team caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

Sam, Hawks Coach is right (no surprise there!) that both of your scenarios would be violations, both in HS and NCAA.

The reason is that your paraphrase above is incorrect in one crucial element. The ball does NOT have to be touched in the backcourt. The requirement is merely that (after the ball has attained frontcourt status) the offense can't be the first to touch the ball after it has achieved backcourt status.

Hope that helps.

[Hawks Coach]

Chuck
I think we agree, but please note that I have no team control in second scenario, therefore no violation. Different reason than Sam gave, but same result.

If you see this play and see team control by the wannabe pass receiver, then I have a violation as would you. Agreed?

[SamIAm]

Chuck, I respect your knowledge and admit that I am actually referencing a 1995 NCAA Rules book, my 2001 copy is at home. However,

"Section 11 Ball in Backcourt
A Player May not be the first to touch the ball in his or her backcourt if the ball came from the frontcourt while the players team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the backcourt. A player causes ..."

In the rule book it indicates the ball must be touched in the backcourt, in both of my scenarios, the ball was not touched while the ball was in the backcourt.

[Hawks Coach]

Sam
Simple scenario. A1 trapped at corner of divsion line and sideline. A1 spins a pass around defender, bouncing it in b/c, once again in f/c, then ball goes to A2 in the f/c. Clearly you would have a violation on this play, wouldn't you?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by SamIAm

"Section 11 Ball in Backcourt
A Player May not be the first to touch the ball in his or her backcourt if the ball came from the frontcourt while the players team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the backcourt.

In your scenario, there never was team control established.You can only get team control by establishing player control.You can only establish player control by holding or dribbling the ball. That never happened. Ergo- no backcourt violation.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Sam
Simple scenario. A1 trapped at corner of divsion line and sideline. A1 spins a pass around defender, bouncing it in b/c, once again in f/c, then ball goes to A2 in the f/c. Clearly you would have a violation on this play, wouldn't you?

Tony earlier quoted the four criteria for b/c:
Ball has FC status.
Team control.
Last to touch in the FC.
First to touch in the BC.

In your scenario: ball has fc status, A has team control, A is the last to touch in fc. However, even though the ball attains bc status on the first bounce, it attains front court status again on the second bounce, then A2 touches it. So A never touched the ball in back court. So...unless my sleep deprivation is affecting my judgement, or there is a case book ruling on this that I'm not aware of, I don't think you have a bc violation because the fourth element is missing.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Tony earlier quoted the four criteria for b/c:
Ball has FC status.
Team control.
Last to touch in the FC.
First to touch in the BC.

In your scenario: ball has fc status, A has team control, A is the last to touch in fc. However, even though the ball attains bc status on the first bounce, it attains front court status again on the second bounce, then A2 touches it. So A never touched the ball in back court. So...unless my sleep deprivation is affecting my judgement, or there is a case book ruling on this that I'm not aware of, I don't think you have a bc violation because the fourth element is missing.

Let me correct #4:

First to touch the ball after it's entered the BC.

This is a BC violation.