|
Tue Dec 31, 2002, 10:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
2nd year ref-want to get it right. Situation last night:
Sit 1. Team A with ball in backcourt, A1 moves ball to front court in her possession. Closely guarded by B1 and B1 knocks ball away from A1, off A1 leg and into backcourt. A1 returns to backcourt and regains possession. I made no call, coach went bananas. Is it backcourt or no call? Sit. 2 Same situation, only this time A1 dribbles it off her shoe, ball goes into backcourt and she retrieves. Backcourt? Sit. 3 (sorry, I think in 3's-drives my company crazy!) Same situation only now, B1 knocks ball directly into backcourt. A1 retrieves. BAckcourt? Want to get this right before I call again this Sat. All wisdom welcomed. Thanks, CH 
|
|
Tue Dec 31, 2002, 10:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Team A possession, ball has front court status, team A last touch before ball goes into backcourt, team A first touch after ball goes into backcourt = violation.
|
|
Tue Dec 31, 2002, 11:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A must have team control. FC status must be established. A must be the last to touch the ball before it goes BC. A must be the first to touch the ball after it goes BC. Although #1 may seem unfair to you, you're penalizing good defense if you don't call it.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 09:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
In these situations, it might help to think of the OOB rules. This isn't football where impetus (one of the coolest words ever) matters - the ball is OOB due to whomever last touched or was touched by the ball. Here, B1 gave the impetus but it does not matter, because A1 caused the ball to go BC (touched him last).
Also, if you can memorize the four BC call conditions, you'll be all set. Running through them quickly before a call/no call can be a big help.
__________________
"To win the game is great. To play the game is greater. But to love the game is the greatest of all."
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 12:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What? Oh,IMPETUS! Never mind. 
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 12:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, Pranged that call. Thanks for the info-spending my New Year's reviewing the rule book.
BTW-always wanted to know how impetus worked with the "prostrate" Thanks all. C
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 12:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 04:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
THIS ISN'T FOOTBALL WHERE IMPETUS (ONE OF THE COOLEST WORDS EVER) MATTERS Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.   (BTW, seems like someone is a bit impotent when it comes to hearing!)
__________________
"To win the game is great. To play the game is greater. But to love the game is the greatest of all."
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 04:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE] 
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 06:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What happened to Chevy Chase's career? I can sum it up for you in three grams. . .  Chuck
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 07:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 07:19pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
I worked with a guy I really respect on Saturday who said that if this play happened:
(1) A1 in frontcourt (2) B1 knocks ball from A1 hands (3) Hits A1's leg in frontcourt (4) Rolls to backcourt (5) First touched by A player he would never call it a backcourt violation. He knows the rule, mind you, but he said that he would never call it. Interesting. I would call it. I don't think the rule is necessarily equitable, but I would call the violation. Rich
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 07:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can think of a few rules that I don't like that much either,but you still have to call them.There's also the problem of always being equally fair to both teams.Ignoring the violation means that you just handed an unfair advantage to the offense,and at the same time you unjustly penalized the defensive team.I think that your partner was completely wrong in this case,Rich.
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 08:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick
I used to think this was a bizarre and kind of unfair rule. But then I thought of it slightly differently. That center court line becomes a type of boundary that A must respect once A crosses that boundary. A must initially have team control for it ever to become a boundary. The problem is when A loses physical custody of the ball after they have it in the front court. But since A had control at one point, it is always A's fault if they cannot retain actual physical control of the ball. If B bats a loose ball OOB, or off A, we differentiate and don't consider it unfair to award the ball to B when they tap off A OOB. The odd thing with backcourt is that A is the only one who has this boundary line in effect. A is lucky if B merely taps backcourt without the ball touching A, because they are able to retrieve the ball. If B taps it off of A but never gets team control, that backcourt line will remain the same boundary for A and they are unlucky. But they were the ones who had and lost control, so either way, you can't call it unfair. A needs to maintain possession, or suffer the potential consequences.
|
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003, 10:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's the same play. Ask him about it the next time you see him.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
