Lakers Game..What is Da Call??

[The_Rookie]

In Today's Lakers game at the 2:20 mark of Q4...Kobe in backcourt dribbling the ball up...makes it to just before the division line and the ball is tapped away by Chris Paul. Kobe and Paul slide and dive on floor going after loose ball. Kobe gets posession but slides out of bounds on end line.

What do you have?

A) Backcourt Violation

B) 8 second violation

C) The tap causes a reset of 8 second count..so no violation

d) Just an OOB call and ball goes to Hornets.


By the way, announcers said officials ruled "D".

Your Thoughts???

[APG]

The call should have been an 8 second violation. The ball never achieved frontcourt status. Surprised Greg Willard didn't have this as he was in great position to see the status of the ball as the slot official.

If they would have ruled it correctly, they would have retroactively put the correct amount of time on the clock (I forget if the OOB call was made at 16 on the clock or not) and New Orleans would have inbounded the ball at halfcourt.

[Adam]

Seems pretty cut and dried "D" to me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The call should have been an 8 second violation. The ball never achieved frontcourt status. Surprised Greg Wilard didn't have this as he was in great position to see the status of the ball as the slot official.

If they would have ruled it correctly, they would have retroactively put the correct amount of time on the clock and New Orleans would have inbounded the ball at halfcourt.

Was Chris Paul standing in the Laker's FC when he tapped it?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was Chris Paul standing in the Laker's FC when he tapped it?

Doesn't matter...a ball not in player control is not considered in the frontcourt unless it breaks the plane of the halfcourt line per NBA rules. The ball never did break the plane in this case.

[Adam]

Hmm. Ok. My next question, then, is doesn't it become a loose ball upon Paul's tip? Or does that not matter WRT the 8 second violation?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was Chris Paul standing in the Laker's FC when he tapped it?

Just to answer your question - no.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hmm. Ok. My next question, then, is doesn't it become a loose ball upon Paul's tip? Or does that not matter WRT the 8 second violation?

The ball is loose but the count still continues. The rule says a team in possession of the ball can not have the ball in the backcourt for 8 seconds. Team possession is established when a team is holding, dribbling or passing the ball and doesn't end until there's a field goal attempt that hits the rim or the other team gains possession of the ball.

You're thinking about the NBA definition of team control which is established when a team is holding, dribbling or passing the ball, but ends when there's a field goal attempt or the defense deflects the ball.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Just to answer your question - no.

Like I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't have mattered if he was or not. When Chris Paul knocked the ball away, player control was lost thus the ball would have to break the plane of the midcourt line to be considered in the frontcourt. This is different than the NFHS and NCAA rule.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Like I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't have mattered if he was or not. When Chris Paul knocked the ball away, player control was lost thus the ball would have to break the plane of the midcourt line to be considered in the frontcourt. This is different than the NFHS and NCAA rule.

Lets Focus on NFHS rule application on this play:

1) Does Paul tipping the ball away from Kobe effect the 10 second count?

2) If Paul would have tipped it away while in frontcourt and Kobe recovered in backcourt..any problem?

Thanks!

[APG]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Lets Focus on NFHS rule application on this play:

1) Does Paul tipping the ball away from Kobe effect the 10 second count?

2) If Paul would have tipped it away while in frontcourt and Kobe recovered in backcourt..any problem?

Thanks!

Per NFHS:

1) If Paul is in the backcourt and deflects the ball away, it doesn't affect the 10 second count. The rule says a team can not be in continuous control of the ball for 10 seconds. Team control does not end when the defense deflects the ball.

2. If Paul deflected the ball while in the frontcourt, and Kobe allowed the ball to hit in the backcourt, there would be a new 10 second count. The ball gained frontcourt status when Paul touched it while in the frontcourt. Now we may have some issues with backcourt violations (per a stupid interpretation from NFHS) but for the matter of a new count, yes there would be a new count as soon as the ball gained backcourt status.

[BillyMac]

NFHS: What if Paul deflected the ball while in the frontcourt, and the ball while airborne, never touching floor in the backcourt, was caught by Bryant, while he was standing in the backcourt?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS: What if Paul deflected the ball while in the frontcourt, and the ball while airborne, never touching floor in the backcourt, was caught by Bryant, while he was standing in the backcourt?

This is in reference to the stupid interpretation that NFHS has laid out that I mentioned in my post.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS: What if Paul deflected the ball while in the frontcourt, and the ball while airborne, never touching floor in the backcourt, was caught by Bryant, while he was standing in the backcourt?

Why are you asking? You know the interp and APG already referenced it in the post right above yours.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Per NFHS:
...
2. If Paul deflected the ball while in the frontcourt, and Kobe allowed the ball to hit in the backcourt, there would be a new 10 second count. The ball gained frontcourt status when Paul touched it while in the frontcourt. Now we may have some issues with backcourt violations (per a stupid interpretation from NFHS) but for the matter of a new count, yes there would be a new count as soon as the ball gained backcourt status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

This is in reference to the stupid interpretation that NFHS has laid out that I mentioned in my post.

Interestingly, I would be willing to bet the same people that wrote that interp would rule this play legal. Whether they'd recognize the discrepancy or not, I don't know.