BC violation on tipped pass by offense

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

The only way I could see this being properly called a backcourt violation would be if the official deemed that said "tip" was the start of a dribble. If both feet were in the front court when the dribble started, then the touch for the second dribble in the backcourt would have constituted a violation.

Such an interpretation by the official would require that the official be certain that the dribble had actually started as opposed to a bat or tap of the ball without actually controlling the ball in the case of the dribble.

Certainly if the ball had bounced far away from the "tipper" this should not be considered the start of the dribble -- it bounced twice before being touched again, etc.

Why make OP something it's not? The situation is that it was tipped.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Why make OP something it's not? The situation is that it was tipped.

Read my post and the initial post. Other than trying to stir up trouble, what would your point be???????

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

...trying to stir up trouble...

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by fullor30

. . . The situation is that it was tipped.

Had one last Friday where I judged a situation "more than a tip"; I was confident in my call, but seek your verification.
In an attempt to rebound a missed shot, rebounder A1, from in front of his own basket, clearly "more than tipped" the rebound when he, while still in the air, with one hand pushed the ball back in an attempt to get it to A2 positioned near the top of the key. The ball went over A2's head and into his backcourt, after which A2 went and picked the ball up in his backcourt.
I whistled a backcourt violation, deeming A1's push of the ball to be player control, thus team control.
Given the definition of player control ("...when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds"), was I correct?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Given the definition of player control ("...when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds"), was I correct?

Was he holding it? Was he dribbling it? If so, you were correct. If not, you were not correct. It's your call (pun intended).

If, when he "pushed" the ball, you thought it came to rest in his hand, then you probably had a "hold".

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

If, when he "pushed" the ball, you thought it came to rest in his hand, then you probably had a "hold".

In the midst of the action, I never considered, "Did the ball come to rest in his hand?" The immediate thought I had was, "Hey, he controlled that ball when he pushed it back toward his backcourt."
Having reviewed the definition of player control as a result of this thread, I was beginning to question the call. A momentary in-motion "rest" did occur -- again, he "more than tapped" the ball-he pushed it -- which seems to have fulfilled the definition.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Had one last Friday where I judged a situation "more than a tip"; I was confident in my call, but seek your verification.
In an attempt to rebound a missed shot, rebounder A1, from in front of his own basket, clearly "more than tipped" the rebound when he, while still in the air, with one hand pushed the ball back in an attempt to get it to A2 positioned near the top of the key. The ball went over A2's head and into his backcourt, after which A2 went and picked the ball up in his backcourt.
I whistled a backcourt violation, deeming A1's push of the ball to be player control, thus team control.
Given the definition of player control ("...when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds"), was I correct?

If A1, one of his teammates, or his Head Coach had requested a time-out while the hand was in contact with the ball would you have granted it?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If A1, one of his teammates, or his Head Coach had requested a time-out while the hand was in contact with the ball would you have granted it?

I understand and appreciate your question. The actual time during which I deemed there to have been player control was too brief to have granted a request for a timeout.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I understand and appreciate your question. The actual time during which I deemed there to have been player control was too brief to have granted a request for a timeout.

Then BY YOUR DETERMINATION player control was not established by A1. Therefore, there was no team control, so you made an incorrect decision in calling a backcourt violation.

See the point?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then BY YOUR DETERMINATION player control was not established by A1. Therefore, there was no team control, so you made an incorrect decision in calling a backcourt violation.

See the point?

There is no timing aspect to player control. By that I mean there is no length of time you have to have player control for there to be team control. For example, on the tip off if B2 gathers the ball in both hands and then immediately loses the ball out of bounds, what are you going to do with the arrow? Hopefully, you'll point it toward A's basket and give the ball to Team A for a throw-in. During the time the player had the ball you probably would not have been able to recognize and grant a timeout request. Does that still mean player control and thus team control did not exist? No! Team control was established even if it was for only a second.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I understand and appreciate your question. The actual time during which I deemed there to have been player control was too brief to have granted a request for a timeout.

The point is not whether it was feasible to actually have requested a TO during the short window of time; the question asked is wether there was such a window.

Consider this, if A's coach is requesting TO, repeatedly, during this process, would you have granted it. The point of Nevada's question is simple, unless there was a window, no matter how brief, during which a TO could be granted, then you never had player control. Without player control, there is no team control, and thus no BC violation.

A controlled tap does not give you player control. If he grabbed it and threw it, then you were right.

On this play, I'd err on the side of no control.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The point is not whether it was feasible to actually have requested a TO during the short window of time; the question asked is wether there was such a window.

Consider this, if A's coach is requesting TO, repeatedly, during this process, would you have granted it. The point of Nevada's question is simple, unless there was a window, no matter how brief, during which a TO could be granted, then you never had player control. Without player control, there is no team control, and thus no BC violation.

A controlled tap does not give you player control. If he grabbed it and threw it, then you were right.

On this play, I'd err on the side of no control.

We have to get away from using this argument that if you would not grant a timeout then they didn't have team control. This works in some situations, but not all and is a bad way of thinking about this, IMHO. The time it takes to turn and recognize that it is the coach requesting a timeout is in many cases too long. A team could of had team control but lost it by the time you recognize the coach calling the timeout. Because I could not grant the timeout, does that mean the team did not have team control, if even briefly? No. All you need to know is did the player have control of the ball. If so, team control is established. There is no time requirement in the rule book for team control.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

We have to get away from using this argument that if you would not grant a timeout then they didn't have team control. This works in some situations,

IT works, in theory, in all situations. Intial player control and team control and ability to grant a time out all happen at the same time.

I agree that in practice, it would be difficult to request and be granted a TO in this brief instance, but it has happened.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

We have to get away from using this argument that if you would not grant a timeout then they didn't have team control. This works in some situations, but not all and is a bad way of thinking about this, IMHO. The time it takes to turn and recognize that it is the coach requesting a timeout is in many cases too long. A team could of had team control but lost it by the time you recognize the coach calling the timeout. Because I could not grant the timeout, does that mean the team did not have team control, if even briefly? No. All you need to know is did the player have control of the ball. If so, team control is established. There is no time requirement in the rule book for team control.

Nor is there a time requirement for a time out to be granted. If Coach A is requesting it as A1 briefly gets control, I'm going to grant the time out, even if B1 steals it before my whistle blows. It's just like granting a TO after a made basket when the thrower has the ball by the time you blow the whistle. I'll have no problem explaining that to a coach.