Texas A&M /Troy NCAA Women's game (backcourt)?
 

Just curious if any rules are different.

A&M has advanced the ball to the 28 foot line after a timeout
They are up 2 with 5 seconds to go.

Inbounds play:
A&M throws a bounce pass that hits in frontcourt/ deflects off their own player/into the backcourt / same player goes an retrieves it in the backcourt

Obviously Troy goes crazy... announcers go crazy...

At the high school level, which is the level that I work games at, that play was a garden variety "BC violation". Peradventure, college level rules are different--I do not know the college rules regarding that play as I'm not a college level ref; however, at the high school level that is going to be back court violation.

Are they tryin to blame the refs for missing a call? No need to blame the refs, they are top notch level refs "best in the business" who know how to apply the rules if they were selected to work the NCAA games. Yet, even if they did miss that particular call, then they must be forgiven---after all it is the season of Lent now.

Lots of rules are different. ;)

This one is the same, though.

Backcourt ...
 

Really?

Was there initial player control when coming from a throwin?

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throwin); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

This was not a BC violation. I will try to post it soon.

Peace

Not as described, it wasn't.

Here's the story and clip:

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-...historic-upset

I knew this play would be discussed on this site. Before I read posts from bob jenkins, JRutledge, and BillyMac, I knew this WAS NOT a backcourt violation.
The player DID NOT obtain control of the ball until she was in the backcourt, thus a garden variety "play on".

Backcourt Violation ...
 

Although the official was somewhat in the way in the video, I believe that while the first inbounds touch (left hand, possibly both hands) did not establish player or team control, the second touch (only left hand) was definitely the start of a dribble (intentionally pushes the ball to the floor) and the dribble established both player and team control and this second touch occurred when both the player's feet were on the frontcourt side of the division line, leading to a backcourt violation by NFHS rules.

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

4-12-2-A: A team is in control of the ball: When a player of the team is in control.

4-15-1: A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.

4-15-3: The dribble begins by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

Bang bang play, easy to miss by an official who was mentally restricted by the immediacy of the act, and physically restricted by the sideline table behind him, in getting a better, more open look.

I think a discussion can be had that the second time the ball hit the floor it was the start of a dribble -- and that might lead to a BC violation.

Start A Dribble ...
 

Agree with "discussion" and "might".

But the ball didn't have to hit the floor to be the start of a dribble, dribbles begin with the ball being intentionally pushed, thrown, or batted to the floor.

Seeing the ball hit the floor just confirms that it probably was a dribble, not a pass, or a try, or something else.

When you saw the play the 1st time in normal speed did you determine for sure that the player had established control in the Front court? I had to watch the play a few times, and then it is still a maybe the touch with the left hand was starting a dribble. Or is she pulling the ball closer to her to control the ball and then start the dribble with the right hand. Too many 'IF's'

Pressure Cooker ...
 

Agree. If you are not sure, don’t call it.

First time through normal time I was concentrating on the first touch (no player control, confirmed by slow motion replay). Second time through normal time I watched the second touch and where the player was located (undecided). Then I concentrated on the second touch and where the player was located on the slow motion replay to come to my final conclusion (backcourt).

The calling official doesn't have the luxury I have of watching this video in slow motion over and over again from the comfort of my computer chair without the pressure cooker of a national television audience, involving a call that won't make or break, my career as a esteemed Forum poster.

Education Is The Key To Success ...
 

Thanks JMUplayer and dahoopref.

Nice thread.

I saw this play and I saw a different sequence of events...

A&M throws a bounce pass that hits in frontcourt/ deflects off their own player/then, from the frontcourt, starts a dribble that goes into the backcourt / same player goes an retrieves it continues to dribble in the backcourt

Yes, the first touch was not control. However, the 2nd touched was controlled and the start of the dribble by a player that was in the frontcourt at the time.

I think it should have been a violation.

That said, even if they'd called it, it was unlikely to have changed the outcome.