Thought provoking back court question.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[just another ref]

The case play referenced earlier (4.15.4 sit c) tells us that the throw in question is a try, so I don't see that it applies here. The whole deal here is whether it is a try or not. The OP in this thread gives the impression (to me anyway) that the throw comes from near the division line. If time is not an issue, that alone would make one doubt that it was a try. Look at the whole picture. If there was a guy near the rim attempting to catch this ball, I would have no problem calling it a pass, so therefore, the violation is correct.

[Adam]

I don't know, just because there's a fella ready to catch the ball doesn't mean much. May have been going up just to make sure. I'm leaning towards a more loose philosophy anyway, so if I can justify a no-call, I'm going down that road.

[just another ref]

The guy trying to catch it alone would be a relatively small piece of the puzzle. After further consideration, I decided that the OP did not specify where the throw came from, but it was mentioned that he had crossed the division line to let us know that the ball had achieved frontcourt status prior to the release. BUT, if indeed this was ruled a pass, where the player was when the ball was released would not matter in this situation. I think Coach P hit the nail on the head on this one. If A1 was fouled in this situation, we must decide whether it was a try or not, regardless of what it hit or didn't hit. In the original sit in this post, we would actually have the luxury of a little more time to make this decision. The biggest factor in this decision, imo, would be the mechanics/body language of the player making the pass/try. For most, not all, players, the mechanics on the two are quite different. I would treat this like the player slapping the backboard. If I can possibly imagine this was a legitimate block attempt, no call. In this case, if I can imagine that it was a try, no call.