Thoughts and questions from Duke/WV
 

No-called backcourt situation. WV had the ball near the line, and Duke slapped it up into the air. WV player retreated to the BC and caught the ball before it hit the floor in the BC.
Official no-called it and gave the foul-tip signal. My first thought, "They missed that one." Then I kept thinking, and realized this is the play where it seems the case play (NFHS) contradicts the rule. I'm not sure if NCAA has the same interp.

Injury on an illegal screened (great call) with just under 8 minutes left, it looked like a TV timeout. The turds with the microphones indicated that the injured player was allowed to stay in due to the timeout. My question, does a TV timeout suffice for this, or would a coach need to use one of his own in order to keep the player in the game? I have no idea how they did it, it just made me curious.

I seen both plays and my initial thought was it was a BC violation. Trainer wasn't beckon media time-out simple situation player plays.

No. NCAA has it right.

How is this a BC violation?

What case play contradicts the rule?

9-9-1
A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

9.9.1 SITUATION C: A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. RULING: In (a), it is a violation. The ball was in control of Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the back court. In (b), legal play. A Team A player was not the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team A is entitled to a new 10-second count.

This isn't a BC violation.

Maybe it wasn't a case play, it might have been an NFHS interp from their website.

It said if the ball bounced in the BC first, it wasn't a violation. If it didn't, it was. I'm glad NCAA did it right.

I am shocked and disappointed......hahahahahahahahahahaha:D :D :D :D


Maybe not so much......

Expect nothing less from a Terps fan... NIT!

Anyways, I had the Duke player knocking it away again as the WVU player started to regain possession of it. All before the ball ever went into the backcourt.

Official did start a new 10 second count....

Higgins T was pretty easy though... guy just about lost his mind. Not sure who got him though...

Backcourt NFHS ...
 

Is this play relevant?

NFHS 2007-08 BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS
SITUATION 6: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt. A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from the team's frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. When A2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when A2 lands in the backcourt. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

Here ya go, from NFHS 2007/2008 Basketball Rules Interpretations

See my previous post. Situation 10 is the relevant one.

The case play and rule I cited are correct. Interp 10 is wrong.

Does that mean they have published a correction, or does that mean only that sensible people who can read know it's wrong?

State rep told us it was wrong and supposed to be corrected but I guess they never did.

I hope they get it done. The ramifications of the interp are pretty broad and frightening, to be honest. It does directly contradict the case play in you quoted.