Thought provoking back court question.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CoachP

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?

Again, it's a judgement call, Coach.

How do you really argue any judgement call?

[TADW_Elessar]

FIBA 15.1 goes: "A shot for a field goal or a free throw is when the ball is held in a player’s hand(s) and is then thrown through the air towards the opponents' basket."

This would surely qualify as a "shot for a field goal".

What do american rules say?

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by 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?

What part of "IN MY OPINION" did you fail to comprehend, Nevada.

Comprehension 101.

I said that it could be called either. I also said that I, JR, would personally call it a try and NO backcourt violation. I don't have a problem at all with anybody else having a different opinion, and saying that in their opinion, it wasn't a try and therefore it was a back court violation. I do have a major problem with the people at Catawba turning a judgement call into a non-judgement call though, which is what they are doing.

And your example is a judgement call also, and could be ruled either way too. Why? Because maybe you are able to, but the majority of officials can't read minds.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

OK, I get you now.

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...

Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

OmyGod......


When I said "animal lover", I really had no idea.

I changed my mind. He can't be a Yankees fan. He has to be a BoSox fan.

Shoulda known......

[Nevadaref]

You are failing to recognize that your OPINION is even more declarative than the ruling of the Catawba people.

Catawba is actually being much more reasonable than you are, since they are allowing for the official to judge this action to be a pass. You are flatly stating that it is always a try. That is just wrong.

Catawba writes, "Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass" then this is a backcourt violation.

JR says, "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo" no matter what, I'm not calling backcourt.

So could you please show me a rule that says that? Where is it in any of the NFHS books that just because the ball hits the ring it is automatically a try?

In short, your opinion is unreasonable and does not allow for this play to be called properly. YOU, not Catawba, are the one turning a judgment call into a non-judgment call by stating that this is always a try for goal when you are the official.

Now go back to Comprehension 100, since you are obviously not ready for the 101 level yet.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Catawba is actually being much more reasonable than you are, since they are allowing for the official to judge this action to be a pass. You are flatly stating that it is always a try. That is just wrong.

Catawba writes, "Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass" then this is a backcourt violation.

JR says, "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo" no matter what, I'm not calling backcourt.

Catawba is saying that the ONLY possible ruling is that the play is a pass. They are saying that there is never any judgement involved.

I'm saying that it could be a pass OR a try depending on each individual official's personal judgement. Then I gave you MY personal judgement. If my personal judgement is that it's a try, then I can't be wrong on that straight judgement call.

You still fail to comprehend that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Catawba is saying that the ONLY possible ruling is that the play is a pass. They are saying that there is never any judgement involved.

I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.

Originally Posted by JTRICE

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.

Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.



Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

Un-freaking believable.

Catawba issued a ruling that it is always a pass and therefore it is always a violation. I disagree with that. That is their ruling only. They do not have any definitive rules citation to make that particular ruling imo. End of story.

I'm done, Nevada. Find somebody else for the rest of this one.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.



Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

You do need to re-take reading comprehension 101.

He is saying the official is free to rule on the play as his judgement dictates, either a pass or a try. He then says as he reads *this* play he would rule it a try.