|
|||
Thought provoking back court question.
During the first quarter A1 dribbles the ball across the division line and into the frontcourt. A1 then attempts an "alley-oop" pass to A2, near the basket. The ball strikes the ring untouched and ricochets directly into the backcourt. A1 hustles into the backcourt and is the first person to touch the ball after it went into the backcourt. The covering official rules a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?
This is another interesting question from the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association in South Carolina. I will post the answer and reason later today. |
|
|||
Let me guess......
Catawba is gonna say that it's not a "try" by rule, and team control was thus never lost. Iow, yes, it's gonna be a backcourt violation. For the record, as far as I'm concerned, if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo. Ergo, loss of team control and NO backcourt violation. Raison d'Etre?---I ain't a mind reader. And neither is any other official anywhere either as far as I'm concerned. It's strictly a judgement call as to whether it was a pass or a try. I don't know how Catawba can give out a supposedly definitive ruling on a judgment call, no matter how they rule. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 09:52am. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Scrapper, good point here.
__________________
Every game is a big game |
|
|||
Quote:
Casae book play 5.2.1SitB says "A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, regardless of whether the thrown ball was a try or not". In this case, you got 2 options: 1) If it's a try---> no backcourt violation. 2) If it's not a try ----> backcourt violation. And....whatever option you pick is based on the calling official's judgement solely. If the ball hits the ring, it's a "try" as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to be a mindreader to rule otherwise, and I don't profess to be that good. |
|
|||
Let me think
"No, coach, despite the fact that it was launched toward the basket and hit the rim, I don't think it was a try. I have to go with the violation!" Pretty hard sell to me. NO call.
__________________
Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
But....whether we give it it 3 if it goes or not isn't dependant on it being a "try" though. Iow, the "try" aspect just ain't relevant when it's used to determine whether a "3" was scored or not, but it is is relevant when it comes to determining whether a back court violation occurs or not. See what I'm getting at? Completely different. Apples and oranges. Yankees and BoSox. |
|
|||
I agree with the others that it's not a violation.
But, I'm using the case play where A1 dribbles, stops, throws the ball off his own backboard, then starts another dribble (legal play) as my justification. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
So if A1 crosses the timeline and launches a 40 foot "ally oop" and is whacked on the arm during this "ally oop" try:
1) does he get 3 FT shots if the ball hits the rim? 2) does he get 3 Ft shots if the ball falls harmlessly to the ground? |
|
|||
Quote:
A pre-teen daughter, eh? I'll bet you have a dog too. I can tell just from your posts that you're probably an animal lover as well as a devoted father. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another Back Court Question | FishinRef | Basketball | 24 | Tue Dec 05, 2006 08:30pm |
Another back court question | dsturdy5 | Basketball | 13 | Mon Jun 06, 2005 09:10am |
Another back court question | Jay R | Basketball | 11 | Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:25pm |
another back court question | walter | Basketball | 44 | Fri Jun 30, 2000 08:57am |
Another back court question | BSL | Basketball | 10 | Mon Dec 06, 1999 03:33pm |