Inadv. Whistle Question

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So not only do I question the rules knowledge of the officials on this game, but they also failed their course in logic.

Oh, now that's just cold hearted.

[tmp44]

sorry about the typo -- correction is fixed.

And to make clear -- ball is simultaneously tapped by A1 and B1 towards division line after the missed FT by A, ball bounces once, then A2 jumps from the backcourt, catches the ball, and lands in the front court as the whistle blows.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tmp44

sorry about the typo -- correction is fixed.

And to make clear -- ball is simultaneously tapped by A1 and B1 towards division line after the missed FT by A, ball bounces once, then A2 jumps from the backcourt, catches the ball, and lands in the front court as the whistle blows.

If that is the case, then this play is not interesting at all. It is NEVER a violation to jump from the BACKCOURT and land in the FRONTCOURT. It can only be a violation if the player goes the other direction.

The play that is thought-provoking is when A2 goes the other direction. For this case, see my post above.

[btaylor64]

I agree with the clinician. If A has the ball in hand when the whistle blows give the ball to A. If it is loose when whistle is blown, go to the AP.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I agree with the clinician. If A has the ball in hand when the whistle blows give the ball to A. If it is loose when whistle is blown, go to the AP.

That part may well be incorrect. If team control existed before the ball became loose, then there is still team control during the loose ball. Thus going to the AP arrow would be incorrect. POI is still the proper decision.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That part may well be incorrect. If team control existed before the ball became loose, then there is still team control during the loose ball. Thus going to the AP arrow would be incorrect. POI is still the proper decision.

Sorry, just bad terminology.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is NEVER a violation to jump from the BACKCOURT and land in the FRONTCOURT. It can only be a violation if the player goes the other direction.

Uh, you better think about this one a little more.

For instance, Team A contols the ball in their frontcourt. A2 is holding the ball awaiting A1, who paused coming up court to talk to Coach A. B applies pressure and A2 passes the ball toward A1 in order to avoid the 5 count. A1 jumps the midcourt line and receives the ball in the air, before establishing frontcourt status.

Violation, correct?? Same as if A1 had OOB status.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

For instance, Team A contols the ball in their frontcourt. A2 is holding the ball awaiting A1, who paused coming up court to talk to Coach A. B applies pressure and A2 passes the ball toward A1 in order to avoid the 5 count. A1 jumps the midcourt line and receives the ball in the air, before establishing frontcourt status.

Violation, correct??

Yes, but not because the player landed in the frontcourt. The violation is for causing the ball to go into the backcourt, which happened as soon as A1 catches the ball.

Nevadaref's point was that it's never a violation to have the ball in the backcourt and then cause it to go to the frontcourt.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If that is the case, then this play is not interesting at all. It is NEVER a violation to jump from the BACKCOURT and land in the FRONTCOURT. It can only be a violation if the player goes the other direction.

Wait.

If the ball has frontcourt status, last touched by A, and A1 touches it in this situation, you have a backcourt violation the moment A1 touches the ball, as he still has backcourt status until he lands in the frontcourt.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Wait.

If the ball has frontcourt status, last touched by A, and A1 touches it in this situation, you have a backcourt violation the moment A1 touches the ball, as he still has backcourt status until he lands in the frontcourt.

You and Hartsy both took that out of context. It was written for a situation in which there is no team control when the player becomes airborne. I'm only talking about a situation in which a player from a team causes the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt. My sentence specifies that. It does NOT pertain to a situation in which the team causes the ball to go: frontcourt to the backcourt and back to the frontcourt. That is the example which the two of you gave.

Additionally, Scrapper pointed out that in your scenario the violation would occur prior to the player landing, no matter if he lands in the frontcourt or the backcourt.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You and Hartsy both took that out of context. It was written for a situation in which there is no team control when the player becomes airborne. I'm only talking about a situation in which a player from a team causes the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt. My sentence specifies that. It does NOT pertain to a situation in which the team causes the ball to go: frontcourt to the backcourt and back to the frontcourt. That is the example which the two of you gave.

Yabut - you emphasized NEVER. Triply so. Just pointing out the semantics of the words, if you will.

Additionally, Scrapper pointed out that in your scenario the violation would occur prior to the player landing, no matter if he lands in the frontcourt or the backcourt.

Yup. We all agree on that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Yabut - you emphasized NEVER. Triply so. Just pointing out the semantics of the words, if you will.



Yup. We all agree on that.

Remember you have to read it in that philosophical, Jesuit way.

Now if you want semantics, I could amend it, just for you, to say:
"If the player does not violate immediately upon touching the ball, it is NEVER..."

But it's not really necessary to do so since I didn't say anything about the ball in that post!