Xavier vs Kansas State

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Stillblind

18:09 remaining in 1st. Xavier brings the ball across midcourt and makes pass parallel to midcourt line. K-State deflects the cross court pass, hitting the ball down (ball strikes front court and heads toward Xaviers back court). Xavier is first to touch the ball approximately 7' into there backcourt. The ball didn't touch the backcourt prior to the touch.
Clearly a backcourt according to NFHS. I made this call numerous times this year, even though 75% of the fans, 50% of the coaches and usually 33% of the refs on the floor disagreed with me. I am now convinced that this is the number 1 missed call in all of basketball. (Isn't the NCAA rule the same as NFHS?)

First, welcome to the forum. Second, please explain why you think this is a violation. Please see the posts above.

BTW - the number 1 missed call in all of basketball is whatever call allows a game to go into overtime.

[Stillblind]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

First, welcome to the forum. Second, please explain why you think this is a violation. Please see the posts above.

BTW - the number 1 missed call in all of basketball is whatever call allows a game to go into overtime.

Mark, I can't disagree with DVR, but I saw it as I described. So for sake of argument lets go with my scenario. I believe it was exactly like the 2 or 3 year old NFHS Interpretation. K-State deflected toward the back court. The ball was in the air over the back court, but that still equals front court status. Once Xavier touced the ball, Xavier caused it to go backcourt. Had the ball bounced first in the BC then I say play on.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Stillblind

Mark, I can't disagree with DVR, but I saw it as I described. So for sake of argument lets go with my scenario. I believe it was exactly like the 2 or 3 year old NFHS Interpretation. K-State deflected toward the back court. The ball was in the air over the back court, but that still equals front court status. Once Xavier touced the ball, Xavier caused it to go backcourt. Had the ball bounced first in the BC then I say play on.

If it was exactly like the interpretation, it was not a violation. The interpretation was/is bogus.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If it was exactly like the interpretation, it was not a violation. The interpretation was/is bogus.

Agreed. This is one I'm more than happy to ignore. And I'll be the only one in the building that knows that I know that I'm passing on a "violation." I can live with that.

Like I said upthread, they could fix this (the gotcha violations, that IMO don't fit the spirit of the rule) with some effort.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Stillblind

Mark, I can't disagree with DVR, but I saw it as I described. So for sake of argument lets go with my scenario. I believe it was exactly like the 2 or 3 year old NFHS Interpretation. K-State deflected toward the back court. The ball was in the air over the back court, but that still equals front court status. Once Xavier touced the ball, Xavier caused it to go backcourt. Had the ball bounced first in the BC then I say play on.

Originally Posted by just another ref

If it was exactly like the interpretation, it was not a violation. The interpretation was/is bogus.

In some people's opinion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In some people's opinion.

Apparently you are not in this group? Explain how the interp can be justified.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently you are not in this group? Explain how the interp can be justified.

I have multiple times. Let's just say I'm not in the camp that says 2 things cannot occur simultaneously.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have multiple times. Let's just say I'm not in the camp that says 2 things cannot occur simultaneously.

Two things definitely can occur simultaneously, but last to touch in frontcourt/first to touch in backcourt cannot.