APG Video Request
 

Duke-Ohio State tonight on ESPN.

Around the 12:50 mark of the 2nd half, B1 tips the ball away from A1. A2 goes to grab it, and starts dribbling. The ball bounces in the frontcourt, but his feet are in the backcourt.

From the TV view, it didn't seem like the ball ever got to the backcourt, nor did B1 gain player control.

Mary Struckoff would tell you this is a violation. B1 is the last to touch the ball "before" it goes into the BC, however, so I wouldn't call it.

Agree....no violation.

What about the ball not even getting to the backcourt? Would the first to touch/last to touch requirement not apply then? If A1 recovers before the ball gets to the backcourt, but his feet are in the backcourt while he is in PC, how can that not be a violation?

If A1 recovers the ball with his feet in the backcourt, the ball is now in the backcourt.

I see what you're saying. The play in question is available to see now on espn3.com. Again, it's around the 12:50 mark, 2nd half.

It was a correct no call. Despite the senseless casebook play, I would be hard pressed to call that in an NFHS game.

It didn't fit the old wording but that crazy casebook play didn't seem to care.

i thought it was a violation when it happened...look at it again via DVR and still think so (although it would be hard to explain to everybody).

Aaron Craft (OSU PG) touched/started dribbling the ball when BOTH of his feet were in the backcourt...violation. This isn't soccer - where a player can be out of bounds touching the ball even if the ball isn't out of bounds. By rule, this should have been a backcourt violation.

Please read the rule again. BC is not the same as OOB. The rule says the team in control has to be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the bc. In this play, B1 was the last to touch it. If you can't explain it, how can you call it?

What Snaqs said. The OSU player started dribbling when he was standing in the backcourt but the ball was in the front court. Team B (Duke) was the last to touch in the front court so this is not a backcourt violation.

Since the player is now dribbling, the ball is not in the frontcourt until the ball and both of the dribbler's feet are in the frontcourt.

The only way this could be a violation, then, is if A1 recovered the ball while he was still in the frontcourt, then stepped into the backcourt.

It's tough to tell from the TV angle if that's what happened.

what I saw was an OSU player dribbling the ball, deflected/touched by a Duke player, OSU player touches ball in attempt to recover, ball goes near backcourt line, OSU player (Aaron Craft) regains control by dribbling while his feet were clearly in the backcourt.

that, by rule is a back court violation.

Are you saying an OSU player touched it in the FC after Duke tipped it but before the ball was touched by the player standing in the BC?

I did not see that in the ESPN3 feed, I saw a Team B tip and then Team A begin his dribble while standing in the backcourt.

I was taught that if the ball had achieved backcourt status and you touched it... no violation. But, if your touch was what caused the status to change from frontcourt to backcourt, that was where the violation occured.

Who taught you this and it was based on what?

The old Mary Struckoff interp debate.

But that's not what the rule says.

I believe it was at an Associational training event... could have been VHSL... not certain

Not saying I agree.......

:D I've been taught lots of incorrect things over the years by vets (even in training situations).

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AzpTtKkSNvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When I saw this last night, I thought it was a BC violation as the ball never got to the BC. But then if you judge that possession gained by the Duke player, then the answer would be no. And if you are not sure, then I can live with not making a call. I can see either way that I am able to break down the video.

Peace

Thanks APG for posting the video.

I'd be interested to see the opposite angle from floor level...basically the view the T had. I don't think the Duke player ever gained player control, and it's hard to tell exactly where Craft's feet are when he gains player control.

Why would Team B gaining possession matter in this case?

There is no team control, so when Team A gets the ball back, they are not going to be penalized for now taking possession off the ball and they are already considered to be in the BC.

Peace

OK, that makes sense but what if Team B never does gain possession? In this case weren't they last to touch the ball in the frontcourt?

But if the ball never gained BC status without the touch of the Team A player, what is the status of the ball?

Peace

So you're arguing in favor of the dreaded NFHS interpretation? I can't see a touch being both simultaneously the last in the frontcourt and the first in the backcourt.

I am not arguing anything actually, remember you asked me why this mattered. 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

But causing the ball to be in the backcourt isn't a violation.
Actually, it is.

If the OSU player was in the BC when they touched the ball that was previously touched by a Duke player, it is not a violation.

Please cite the NFHS rule reference for this.

Site a rule where I am wrong?

I also looked at the video again and it looks like the player touched the ball in the FC and then stepped into the BC. It is really close and as I said before I can see why it was not called if that was the case.

Peace

9-9-1, "if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt." Or is there another rule you know of that makes it a violation.

Cite a rule that says it is a violation....if there isn't one, its legal.
Nothing like changing your description of the play to make your ruling correct. ;)

So if he touches the ball while in the FC and then is dribbling and touches the BC, you are saying that is not a violation?

Peace

No, the situation was that the player was in the backcourt while the ball bounced up from the frontcourt and the player (still in the backcourt) then touched the ball (which had frontcourt status until it was touched) and started a dribble....no violation. That player was not the last to touch the ball BEFORE it went to the backcourt (by being touched by the player who was in the backcourt).

IF that player had touched the ball to start the dribble while he had frontcourt status, then stepped into the backcourt, it would be a violation, but that is not the situation being discussed or the one you described earlier....

It looks to me that he touched the ball before his feet were in the backcourt. I will look at it again but if he is dribbling and touches the backcourt that is not a last to touch, first to touch situation. That is a player taking a ball to the back court.

Peace

So again, if it is not first to touch/last to touch what rule prohibits this?

If that is what happened, then you'd be right, but that is not what you or others stated earlier.

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. But it is hard to tell because there was no close up to when the player touched the ball and that is what I was thinking when I first saw the play. I cannot speak for what others said, I can only speak for myself and what I witnessed.

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).

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

The statement in red is incorrect.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

Thank you for clarifying, I agree with you.

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.

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

For the record I do not care about the Struckoff interpretation. This was a college game with NCAA Rules. She does not control the Men's side and never did. I was not even thinking of her NF Interpretation anyway.

Peace

Who?

Agree....but others were bringing it into the discussion.