Is this a Backcourt Violation?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There is no such thing as a controlled tip or tap, by rule. A "controlled tip" has no bearing on any play in determining control. Player control is established by HOLDING or DRIBBLING a LIVE ball INBOUNDS. That's it. That's the only way. So a tip or tap, even if intentionally directed, does not establish control. Ever.

Scrapper1, there are some guys who think "controlled" tap means the ball actually comes to rest for a split second in the hand, therefore qualifying as being "held".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Scrapper1, there are some guys who think "controlled" tap means the ball actually comes to rest for a split second in the hand, therefore qualifying as being "held".

They may think that, but they'd be wrong. The ball can be tapped (which is the same as being batted) or it can be held. But it can't be both at the same time.

There is, by rule, no such thing as a controlled tap. Get it out of the vocabulary.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by scrapper1

they may think that, but they'd be wrong. The ball can be tapped (which is the same as being batted) or it can be held. But it can't be both at the same time.

There is, by rule, no such thing as a controlled tap. Get it out of the vocabulary.

+1

[Brick43]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Where the throw-in originates doesn't matter. The ball has neither FC or BC status during the throw-in.

The ball was side out near division line but like stated here that doesn't matter.

[Brick43]

You inserted after a made basket but I did not state that. The ball was side out in the FC. How this played out was that the trail official made a back court call. Although I should have been focused more in the FC it was one of those plays where I bounced the ball to the inbounder and was chopping in the clock. Therefore I saw the play unfold. I quickly called for a conference, in my mind to overturn this BC call. However my partner determined the tip was intentional and therefore established possession and control. Like someone else in this thread stated he was of the mind set that this type of tip somehow established control? I tried to explain that a tip is not control and that he was incorrect in that thinking. He then replied that even so he can't then be the 1st person to touch it in the BC. He was so persistent that he made the right call that I questioned the latter point(1st to touch after tip) and for nothing other than moving the game along agreed. So was this BC?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Brick43

You inserted after a made basket but I did not state that. The ball was side out in the FC. How this played out was that the trail official made a back court call. Although I should have been focused more in the FC it was one of those plays where I bounced the ball to the inbounder and was chopping in the clock. Therefore I saw the play unfold. I quickly called for a conference, in my mind to overturn this BC call. However my partner determined the tip was intentional and therefore established possession and control. Like someone else in this thread stated he was of the mind set that this type of tip somehow established control? I tried to explain that a tip is not control and that he was incorrect in that thinking. He then replied that even so he can't then be the 1st person to touch it in the BC. He was so persistent that he made the right call that I questioned the latter point(1st to touch after tip) and for nothing other than moving the game along agreed. So was this BC?

Only if the player held or dribbled it in the FC prior to it going into the BC. It was either a tip, a dribble, or a hold. The way you describe it, it was a tip and thus the wrong call.

Early on, I was known to talk a partner into a wrong call occasionally.