Xavier vs Kansas State

[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".

[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"?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

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

Yes, I'm bigger than he is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

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

No, cause I'd probably start laughing on the court. And then something would burst in Martin's head and I'd feel responsible.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

That's the part I say is up to debate.

And debating now would be a waste of keystrokes since I doubt either one of us will say anything that hasn't already been proffered.