Thought provoking back court question.

[JTRICE]

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.

[Adam]

I'm not calling this, but I can see how the official might since he didn't consider the pass to be a try. I'm calling it a try and therefore ruling this play legal.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo.

Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

Scrapper, good point here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

Is that really relevant as to whether we call it a "try" or not?

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.

[mplagrow]

"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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Is that really relevant as to whether we call it a "try" or not?

No more relevant than if it simply hits the rim. . . Didn't you recently say:

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No more relevant than if it simply hits the rim. . . Didn't you recently say:

Yup, sure did. That's because I'm deeming it a try, not being Carnac the Magnificent.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

Points can be scored without a try so that adds nothing to the discussion.

[JTRICE]

Originally Posted by JTRICE

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.

The answer as posted on the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association board:

Answer: The official was correct. Although the situation would have resulted in a three point goal if the ball had passed through the goal, this would have been under the rule (5.2.1) regarding "a thrown ball from the field by a player from behind the team's own 19 foot, 9 inch arc." Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass, by rule (4.12.4) team control did not end. Therefore, Team A, who had control, was the last to touch the ball before it went backcourt and the first to touch after it went backcourt. By rule (Rule 9.9.1) this is a backcourt violation.

[Adam]

Not in my game, it's not. I'm ruling this a try. Sorry, Catawba.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not in my game, it's not. I'm ruling this a try. Sorry, Catawba.

I agree completely. We're not mind readers, and as JR, Bob & others have pointed out, there's plenty of case play to support a no call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

We're not mind readers.

That's the bottom line imo. You can't give a completely definitive answer to what is basically a judgement call right from the git-go. Unfortunately, Catawba is trying to do just that.

An analogy would be to look at a play and say "There was contact on that play. It must be a foul". The correct answer however is that there was contact on the play, but it's only a foul if the contact was judged as not being incidental. And that's up to the calling official solely, no one else.

[Nevadaref]

JR it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the ruling given, but rather have a big problem with the Catawba people categorically stating that this action is not a try for goal. In other words they are removing a necessary element of judgment by the official as to whether this action was a pass or a try.

Oddly enough, you seem to being guilty of the same thing when you state "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo." I would rather see you not use that criterion, but judge each individual play on its own.

For example, consider the following play:
A1 drives the end line and reaches a position in the lane directly under the backboard when he ends his dribble. He spots teammate A2 open near the top of the key, so he jumps and throws the ball in that direction. The ball strikes the underside of the front of the ring and due to the change in direction sails past A2 and into the backcourt. A2 is then the first player to touch the ball.

Surely you would deem this play a backcourt violation, right?