APG Video Request

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually I said that if the ball was brought into the BC by the OSU player it would be a violation and that is not first to touch, last to touch situation...
Peace

That is precisely a last to touch, first to touch situation. If that was what happened, the player was touching the ball before it went to the backcourt (last to touch), was still touching the ball at the moment it went to the backcourt, and continued touching it in the backcourt (first to touch).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot speak for what others said, I can only speak for myself and what I witnessed.

Peace

Which is why I quoted you. Here is what you said....

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a ball touches a player that is touching the backcourt, the ball is in the backcourt by rule. And if a team is in continuous team control when they touch the ball in that circumstance, then they have violated. The Ohio State player caused the ball to be in the back court by beginning a dribble and touching the backcourt, if you deem that team control was never lost by them. First to touch and last to touch is not the only way you can have a backcourt violation.

Peace

The statement in red is incorrect.

[JRutledge]

Cameron,

I am still trying to figure out what I said was wrong. If you are touching the backcourt the ball is in the backcourt as a ball handler right. If the player took the ball to the backcourt, that is a violation if they were in possession of the ball or touching the ball in the FC first, which would have been the only way this was a violation in this play.

This is the NCAA Rule:
Section 12. Ball in Back Court

Art. 1. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court.

The question for me was always if TC ended with the OSU team and the Duke player took it over. Or if Duke player simply tipped the ball away then the OSU player was already in the BC, then that would not be a violation if they contacted the ball. And if it was so close to not tell, that is why I feel it probably was not called. But it looked to me like the OSU player might have taken the ball to the BC. I guess I do not see that as what we typically call a first to touch, last to touch situation as the issue is not who was first and last, the ball had FC status, then BC status by the player in control of the ball. Just like a player that is being trapped near the division line and steps into the BC or on the division line.

Peace

[Eastshire]

The problem with the angle we have is that we can't see for sure when the first touch takes place. It seems to me that the OSU player had to have touched it while still in the front court, or the ball's momentum would have taken it further into the back court.

However, from what we can see, the OSU player is in the back court when he touches a ball last played/touched by an opponent, which is not a violation even if OSU has team control.

[Adam]

Seems to me the NCAA rule quoted by rut (using "caused") is different than the high school rule last to touch.)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Seems to me the NCAA rule quoted by rut (using "caused") is different than the high school rule last to touch.)

I don't think it's functionally different. The violation is still first to touch. Instead of last to touch we have caused to go. I think who ever touched it last in the front court is the one who caused it to go to the back court. However, I'm strictly a NFHS guy, so I could be wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't think it's functionally different. The violation is still first to touch. Instead of last to touch we have caused to go. I think who ever touched it last in the front court is the one who caused it to go to the back court. However, I'm strictly a NFHS guy, so I could be wrong.

I do not see it as much different and I cannot find a Case play that suggests it is ruled totally different. My point was if a player touches the ball with feet in the BC, the ball is now in the BC, especially during a dribble. If the Duke player touched the ball before the OSU player did, then that is not a violation. But that is not my contention on this play either.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the Duke player touched the ball before the OSU player did, then that is not a violation.

Thank you for clarifying, I agree with you.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Cameron,

I am still trying to figure out what I said was wrong. If you are touching the backcourt the ball is in the backcourt as a ball handler right. If the player took the ball to the backcourt, that is a violation if they were in possession of the ball or touching the ball in the FC first, which would have been the only way this was a violation in this play.

This is the NCAA Rule:
Section 12. Ball in Back Court

Art. 1. A player shall not be the first to touch the ball in his or her back court (with any part of his or her body, voluntarily or involuntarily) when the ball came from the front court while the player’s team was in team control and the player or a teammate caused the ball to go into the back court.

The question for me was always if TC ended with the OSU team and the Duke player took it over. Or if Duke player simply tipped the ball away then the OSU player was already in the BC, then that would not be a violation if they contacted the ball. And if it was so close to not tell, that is why I feel it probably was not called. But it looked to me like the OSU player might have taken the ball to the BC. I guess I do not see that as what we typically call a first to touch, last to touch situation as the issue is not who was first and last, the ball had FC status, then BC status by the player in control of the ball. Just like a player that is being trapped near the division line and steps into the BC or on the division line.

Peace

The phrase in the NCAA rule about causing the ball to GO into the backcourt is the equivalent to last to touch. It is not the same as causing the ball to BE OOB...which occurs when they are touched by the ball. The defensive player who deflected it towards the backcourt is the one who caused to ball to GO to the backcourt. Your statement about a player who was in the backcourt and touched by the ball is only a violation if a teamate was the one to deflected/passed/touched the ball causing it to GO to the backcourt.


I agree with everything you said in the 2nd paragraph....and they are all last to touch, first to touch situations. The backcourt rule simply revolves around the very moment the gains backcourt status and who touched it just before that moment and who touches it just after that moment...even if it is the same touch.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The phrase in the NCAA rule about causing the ball to GO into the backcourt is the equivalent to last to touch. It is not the same as causing the ball to BE OOB...which occurs when they are touched by the ball. The defensive player who deflected it towards the backcourt is the one who caused to ball to GO to the backcourt. Your statement about a player who was in the backcourt and touched by the ball is only a violation if a teamate was the one to deflected/passed/touched the ball causing it to GO to the backcourt.

I do not recall me saying that this was automatically a violation. I was simplying saying that the ball has BC status now. That has other ramifications as to if you have a new count or where can the player go. Who caused to be back there was not simply about if it was a violation. Actually I was unsure (and still unsure) if the player contacted the ball in the FC then stepped into the BC and that would be a violation.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with everything you said in the 2nd paragraph....and they are all last to touch, first to touch situations. The backcourt rule simply revolves around the very moment the gains backcourt status and who touched it just before that moment and who touches it just after that moment...even if it is the same touch.

OK, I disagree with the first and last to touch part or what it actually means, but I see your point. I think that is semantics but then again the NCAA Rules wording is a little different.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The phrase in the NCAA rule about causing the ball to GO into the backcourt is the equivalent to last to touch. It is not the same as causing the ball to BE OOB...which occurs when they are touched by the ball. The defensive player who deflected it towards the backcourt is the one who caused to ball to GO to the backcourt. Your statement about a player who was in the backcourt and touched by the ball is only a violation if a teamate was the one to deflected/passed/touched the ball causing it to GO to the backcourt.

....

In the Duke/OSU play how did the defender cause the ball to go to the backcourt? The ball itself never reached the backcourt. It only attained that status when the OSU player touched the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the Duke/OSU play how did the defender cause the ball to go to the backcourt? The ball itself never reached the backcourt. It only attained that status when the OSU player touched the ball.

And that player was in the backcourt.

"Cause" in this situation is not the same "cause" as is used in the OOB situation (where "cause" is clearly defined to include touching a player who is OOB).

"Cause" in the backcourt situation is the same as last to touch the ball before the moment before it touched or was touched by a player or the floor in the backcourt. "Cause" in this context is the player who sent the ball to the backcourt....not the one it touched at the end of the play.

The OSU player didn't cause the ball to come to him when he touched it...the Duke player caused it to be there.

Another way to look at it....Causing to GO vs. causing to BE. It is not a violation for a team to cause the ball to BE in the backcourt unless they also caused it to go into the backcourt and are the first to touch the ball after it does do.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...
The OSU player didn't cause the ball to come to him when he touched it...the Duke player caused it to be there.

....

The Duke player caused the ball to be where?

I know what you are saying but I'm really just playing a game of semantics b/c quite often folks here have a condescending attitude towards anybody who understands the "Struckoff" interpretation of the play as if we're a bunch of idiots.

The wording of the backcourt rules could be tweeked to eliminate any chance of debate, but then folks would be offended because when they see a rule one way and one way only anybody who comes up a possible alternative interpration is also an idiot who now wants the entire rule book re-written for their own benefit.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The Duke player caused the ball to be where?

I know what you are saying but I'm really just playing a game of semantics b/c quite often folks here have a condescending attitude towards anybody who understands the "Struckoff" interpretation of the play as if we're a bunch of idiots.

The wording of the backcourt rules could be tweeked to eliminate any chance of debate, but then folks would be offended because when they see a rule one way and one way only anybody who comes up a possible alternative interpration is also an idiot who now wants the entire rule book re-written for their own benefit.

Causing in this situation is the same as the last person to touch the ball BEFORE it gained backcourt status. Since it gained backcourt status the moment it was touched by the OSU player, you have to determine who was the last person to touch it before that point....the Duke player. That player caused it to go into the backcourt.

Simply but, there is nothing to understand about the Struckoff interp....it is fundamentally contrary to the written rule and has never been called that way. There is no possible way to twist it such that it makes sense...an event that happens before a point in time and an event that happens after a point in time can't be the same event. It defies basic logic. They are two separate events. Her interpretation has declared one event to both be before AND after a point in time.

The rule could certainly be rewritten so support her interpretation, but in its current form, it can not result in that interpretation.