The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   back court or not???? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/16057-back-court-not.html)

Camron Rust Sun Oct 24, 2004 01:46am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
This criteria list is not strictly true but good enough for 99% of real cases.
What would be the criterion for the other 1% of cases? You've got me stumped.

It has to do with the exceptions that are no longer listed as exceptions in the rule book.

Not what I was thinking...see Bob's post above.

It's not where they touched it but when.

BktBallRef Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:22am

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
This criteria list is not strictly true but good enough for 99% of real cases.
What would be the criterion for the other 1% of cases? You've got me stumped.

It has to do with the exceptions that are no longer listed as exceptions in the rule book.

Not what I was thinking...see Bob's post above.

It's not where they touched it but when.

The 4 criteria did not cover the items that were once listed as exceptions but are now simply written into the rule

For example, according to the 4 criteria, a throw-in situation where A2 leaves the floor in the FC, catches the ball while airborne and lands in the BC is a violation. But the former exception, now part of the rule, states that it isn't a violation.

Camron Rust Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
This criteria list is not strictly true but good enough for 99% of real cases.
What would be the criterion for the other 1% of cases? You've got me stumped.

It has to do with the exceptions that are no longer listed as exceptions in the rule book.

Not what I was thinking...see Bob's post above.

It's not where they touched it but when.

The 4 criteria did not cover the items that were once listed as exceptions but are now simply written into the rule

For example, according to the 4 criteria, a throw-in situation where A2 leaves the floor in the FC, catches the ball while airborne and lands in the BC is a violation. But the former exception, now part of the rule, states that it isn't a violation.

Still not what I was thinking...

I had in mind the cases where the ball hits the official and returns to the backcourt (still a violaion when A touches it even though they were not "the last to touch it in the frontcourt" or when a cross court bounce pass from a player in the backcourt near the division line bounces the ball in the FC on the pass but the receiver has a foot in the backcourt. Still a violation even though A never touched the ball in the FC. ....


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1