Xavier vs Kansas State

[APG]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The "gotcha" aspects of some of the more weird backcourt violations is the one rule change I would put through. I would eliminate all these violations, including the one where B knocked the ball off A into the backcourt.

How specifically would you word the rule compared to what it is right now?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

How specifically would you word the rule compared to what it is right now?

I think that would be the biggest problem.

Peace

[just another ref]

The one I thought was missed was in the last two minutes of regulation. The K State player batted/threw the ball into backcourt off a rebound where it was recovered by a teammate. He had both hands on the ball, looked like control to me. Apparently the guys that count disagreed.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The one I thought was missed was in the last two minutes of regulation. The K State player batted/threw the ball into backcourt off a rebound where it was recovered by a teammate. He had both hands on the ball, looked like control to me. Apparently the guys that count disagreed.

I think Xavier touched it just before K-State's player recovered it in the BC. I watched it again on DVR and that had to be what it was. If not, they kicked it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The one I thought was missed was in the last two minutes of regulation. The K State player batted/threw the ball into backcourt off a rebound where it was recovered by a teammate. He had both hands on the ball, looked like control to me. Apparently the guys that count disagreed.

What has "both hands on the ball" have to do with anything? That's completely irrelevant when it comes to determining whether player control has been established. The only criteria to be used is whether the ball came to rest in either one or both hands of any player.

And imo in that particular play it didn't. Always a judgment call.

[bainsey]

There's another play from this game that I'd like to discuss.

Late in regulation, K-State was "trying to foul." There was contact made on one play near the division line, but the dribbler had a good clear path ahead of him, so no whistle. A few seconds later, there was a foul on a three-point attempt.

The color commentator (I came into the game late and didn't get names) was lamenting how unfair it was to K-State that the first contact wasn't called, and that Xavier gets three free throws instead of two, because the officials "missed" the first contact. Personally, I'm not sold that it was missed.

I disagree that this "should" have been called a foul, for two reasons. First, while there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact. Second, should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard? How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

As a new guy here, I could easily be asking something discussed many times before, and I apologize if that's the case. Still, I'd enjoy thoughts on this.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There's another play from this game that I'd like to discuss.

Late in regulation, K-State was "trying to foul." There was contact made on one play near the division line, but the dribbler had a good clear path ahead of him, so no whistle. A few seconds later, there was a foul on a three-point attempt.

The color commentator (I came into the game late and didn't get names) was lamenting how unfair it was to K-State that the first contact wasn't called, and that Xavier gets three free throws instead of two, because the officials "missed" the first contact. Personally, I'm not sold that it was missed.

I disagree that this "should" have been called a foul, for two reasons. First, while there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact. Second, should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard? How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

As a new guy here, I could easily be asking something discussed many times before, and I apologize if that's the case. Still, I'd enjoy thoughts on this.

It's being discussed in this thread -
Here's a switch

[jalons]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The color commentator (I came into the game late and didn't get names) was lamenting how unfair it was to K-State that the first contact wasn't called, and that Xavier gets three free throws instead of two, because the officials "missed" the first contact. Personally, I'm not sold that it was missed.

Len Elmore

Originally Posted by bainsey

I disagree that this "should" have been called a foul, for two reasons. First, while there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact.

Look at the other thread. The "no-call" seems to be the opinion of the majority (so far).

[MathReferee]

At first glance I was thinking backcourt on this one too, but then I had to go back to the old adage : If the player that threw the ball into the backcourt were to request a timeout at that moment, would I grant it?

I reached the conclusion that I most certainly would not, so no BC.

As for the foul situation at the end of regulation...that's the risk Martin takes for using that strategy. The first contact was minimal, but at the same time I think the official may have been surprised by the strategy too.

On another note, anyone else want to be on the receiving end of Frank Martin's "death stare"?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What has "both hands on the ball" have to do with anything? That's completely irrelevant when it comes to determining whether player control has been established. The only criteria to be used is whether the ball came to rest in either one or both hands of any player.

And imo in that particular play it didn't. Always a judgment call.

I was merely describing the play. He caught (I thought) the ball in both hands and threw it backward, as opposed to batting, which of course can be with both hands, but more often involves only one hand.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

How specifically would you word the rule compared to what it is right now?

First try (early in the morning, no coffee):

"If B touches the ball it is not a backcourt violation if A doesn't re-establish PLAYER control in the frontcourt."

I'm sure this would cause problems (as someone will point out) but that's my starting point. It would eliminate the "hit the ball out of A's hands, off A's leg, into the backcourt, violation".