Thought provoking back court question.

[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.