West Virginia-Gonzaga

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

Does "foot on the line" equate to "in the RA?" If he is on the line, its by a very miniscule amount. From the angle that the L has, I'm not positive he would have known for sure anyway.

Yes. The RA is treated the same as the sideline or endline (i.e. if any part of the foot is touching, you are in). The RA is more restrictive in that even if a foot is hovering over the line, you are considered in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The RA is more restrictive in that even if a foot is hovering over the line, you are considered in.

Wow. So it doesn't follow the high school creed of, "You are where you are until you get where you're going".

Although there is at least one exception in high school to the high school creed: The three second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm thinking that will happen. It wouldn't be the first time Art and crew failed to account for realistic scenarios when making rule changes. Attention to detail isn't their strong suit.

I sent an email to JD about this because I am not convinced this is not a violation under NCAA Rules. Or at least it is not incredibly clear for sure.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

As the BCV rule is written, it would indeed be a BCV.

However, I'm going to suggest that the intent of the rule would be otherwise. The rule is written for the common situation, not some bizarre thing like this. I'm OK with a person not calling a violation here in NCAA as the clear intent of the rule was to not penalize the offensive team for a lose ball that is loose because of a defensive bat/deflection.

[JRutledge]

I wanted to update my correspondence with the NCA on this play.

I emailed JD Collings a few days ago looking for clarification. He emailed me back and said that he would pass this off to Art Hyland in the email to answer as to whether this was a BC violation in NCAA Rules.

Art then responded yesterday and said that he felt this was not a BC violation. Mr. Hyland said that he felt that the rules did not consider this situation to take place in the BC and then go to the FC. So as a result this is basically in the spirit of the rules that were written in the past. So this was ruled properly and was not called a violation and the NCAA supports that position.

I would not be surprised if there is an editorial change or either case plays that will support that ruling by Art.

But I thought we should know what is proper here. Also, this is under NF rules still a BC violation by all accounts as team control was still in the hands of the WVU team IMO.

Peace

[Raymond]

Do I get a gold star or something?

Originally Posted by Raymond

For the back court play, here's the wording from last year's rulebook:

9-12 Art. 5. A pass or any other loose ball (including when a player in control of the ball loses control of the ball when a defensive player bats or deflects it out of his control) in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

Based on the above wording, there doesn't seem to be an exception for a ball that is batted/deflected by the defense in back court.

However, I think the spirit of the rule is not to penalize the offense with a back court violation when there is a loose ball caused by the defense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm thinking that will happen. It wouldn't be the first time Art and crew failed to account for realistic scenarios when making rule changes. Attention to detail isn't their strong suit.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Do I get a gold star or something?

You certainly get something. That was exactly what he addressed in the email. I was summarizing, but you were spot on my friend.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Raymond

For the back court play, here's the wording from last year's rulebook:

9-12 Art. 5. A pass or any other loose ball (including when a player in control of the ball loses control of the ball when a defensive player bats or deflects it out of his control) in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

Based on the above wording, there doesn't seem to be an exception for a ball that is batted/deflected by the defense in back court.

However, I think the spirit of the rule is not to penalize the offense with a back court violation when there is a loose ball caused by the defense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The official notification from Bulletin No. 1 – December 14, 2020 Teleconference Follow-Up:

"2. A1 is dribbling the ball in his backcourt when B1 bats the ball toward the division line. The ball crosses the division line into the front court where it strikes A2 in the leg and rebounds back across the division line into the backcourt. A1 is the first to touch the ball in the backcourt.

• Ruling – Legal play. The intent to Rule 9-12.5 is to permit Team A to be the first to touch in the backcourt whenever there is a deflection by the defense. Unfortunately, the rule as written implies that the deflection must occur in the “front court”. This interpretation now clarifies this omission by indicating that the rule is in effect when the deflection by the defense occurs in either the front court or the backcourt. (Rule 9-12.5) "

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The official notification from Bulletin No. 1 – December 14, 2020 Teleconference Follow-Up:

"2. A1 is dribbling the ball in his backcourt when B1 bats the ball toward the division line. The ball crosses the division line into the front court where it strikes A2 in the leg and rebounds back across the division line into the backcourt. A1 is the first to touch the ball in the backcourt.

• Ruling – Legal play. The intent to Rule 9-12.5 is to permit Team A to be the first to touch in the backcourt whenever there is a deflection by the defense. Unfortunately, the rule as written implies that the deflection must occur in the “front court”. This interpretation now clarifies this omission by indicating that the rule is in effect when the deflection by the defense occurs in either the front court or the backcourt. (Rule 9-12.5) "

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Shall I pat myself on the back for this one? LOL!!!!

Not really but I can dream.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Hey, give the OP some credit, too! =) We can’t be sure Art and JD didn’t get inquiries from elsewhere, but to me it sure seems like SC saw something, which begot JRut’s video download and attention, which begot his email, which begot (I’m skipping a few steps) Art’s national bulletin.

Yay, Forum! That’s pretty cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Hey, give the OP some credit, too! =) We can’t be sure Art and JD didn’t get inquiries from elsewhere, but to me it sure seems like SC saw something, which begot JRut’s video download and attention, which begot his email, which begot (I’m skipping a few steps) Art’s national bulletin.

Yay, Forum! That’s pretty cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I am the one that contacted JD and Art? LOL!!!

Seriously this was a great request and a great discussion. I probably was not the only person to contact them on this play either. But it was interesting to hear from them both.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But I am the one that contacted JD and Art? LOL!!!



Seriously this was a great request and a great discussion. I probably was not the only person to contact them on this play either. But it was interesting to hear from them both.



Peace

They are probably more receptive to feedback than most realize. When John Adams was national coordinator, on two separate occasions he engaged me with multiple email exchanges in regards to the periodic in-season rules quizzes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They are probably more receptive to feedback than most realize. When John Adams was national coordinator, on two separate occasions he engaged me with multiple email exchanges in regards to the periodic in-season rules quizzes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I have met JD several times, very easy to talk to. He has been at many camps I have been to and is very open to concerns you might have. I was not surprised he responded and even responded the way he did. He actually passed the email on to Art and told me Art would address the issue. Art's responses were also very good.

Side note. John Adams used to run a D2 Conference in my region. He never hired me for that conference but his camps were great. He used to only charge $50 for all his conferences which also he used for when he was the supervisor for the Horizon League. Well the funny part of all of this, he was direct and very helpful. He now is on the Indiana High School Athletic Association's Basketball Official's Facebook page offering advice to officials that work games at a relative's games. He even told everyone on that site the good job of a crew he observed. He can seem like a guy with an edge but seems like a very nice person overall. He even sent me a private message asking me about an NF rule he was not clear on.

I think they were good people at their core and their position has never been too big for them. Both JD and John are Indiana guys and are down to earth for the most part. I respect both of them tremendously.

Peace