Back court heat bulls game
 

Couldn't be more obvious. Turiaf on heat recovers, fumbles, steps in back court.....no call. I'm sure they have reason for non call, but I sit there yelling at the TV not caring who the call favors but the failure to apply the rules. I truly have no idea what they see/don't see in the NBE.

First, if you gave us the approximate time in which this play occurred, that'd be great. Second, there isn't enough information in your description, to say whether a call was missed or not.

I agree it was pretty blatant. It was in 1st half, probably 2nd quarter, but that's all I can remember about the timing of the play though.

Don't we have plenty of questionable calls in the NCAA tournament every year? Do you say "I truly have no idea what they see/don't see in the NCAA tournament"?

No I don't. I was speaking metaphorically. It's more of indictment of the philosophy of calls in the NBE

I believe in second quarter which doesn't help much. Do you have access to all games. I know you can capture clips which I wish I could do.

Short version. he gained control near division line, was starting to fall into backcourt, as he was falling bobbled ball and stepped a good three feet into backcourt

I understand what you are saying, but I would think your question would be more relavent as it applies to fouls.

In this case (I haven't seen the play nor do I know the exact language for the NBA backcourt rule) it seems like what we may have is a brain fart by an official.

Disagree, number one complaint is failure to call travel wouldn't you agree.

I'm seeing more and more brain farts. This call wouldn't be palatable in a 7yr old rec league.

You sir, must be a darn good official!

I'll bite, what makes you say that?

The NBA has different travelling rules than the NCAA and FED. And we have seen plenty of video posted right here in this forum showing NCAA officials failing to enforce obvious travelling violations. And we've also seen plenty of examples of NCAA officials incorrectly calling BC violations that did not occur.

So again, do you make the same statement about NCAA officials as you would NBA officials?

The previous comment I quoted by you seems extremely critical of the no-call. How often have you seen a rolled throw-in make it into the f/c untouched?

We don't at all. That is the part I do not understand either. We have certainly in the past month have shown a lot of questionable decisions by NCAA officials and no one said they did so based on entertainment. I guess it always bothers me when that is said because no one says NFL or MLB are doing things for entertainment when they have similar differences in philosophies based on the fact that they are pros and not amateur game.

Peace

Sir, you make too much sense here.

What other league or level of basketball would allow this type of play to happen? My contention would be that it is more likely to see this type of play allowed night in and night out in the NBA and not so much in the NCAA.

Are the rules in the NBA, as such, so that it's that difficult to recognize the pivot foot?

Corey Maggette travels six times in 1 play - YouTube

Well, we know that Austin Rivers is allowed to travel and I think all past videos of egregious travels in NCAA games involved either Duke players or Tyler Hansbrough so me thinks it might be more of a Tar Heel/Blue Devil travel exception that applies to basketball universally.

IDK whats funniest, the 6 travels or complaining about the foul.

LOL!!!

Well I think because of the universal hatred for those very successful programs we tend to see people point out videos of those programs. But I can show a few videos of obvious travels not called at other programs and players that we do not know as well. ;)

Peace

The NBA has explicitly modified rules with the purpose of increasing scoring...targeting their viewing audiences wishes. I don't think the NFL has necessarily done so to the same degree. (I don't watch baseball so I can't comment there). Some of the NFL football rules actually are counter to increased scoring (e.g., 2 feet down vs 1 foot down on a sideline reception...making it more difficult to advance the ball).

The indictment is more about the NBA as a league and not the officials. I have no doubt that the officials are doing a great job calling the game as they're hired to do. The league just has a different goal in how they want the game called...and the officials do the job they're hired to do.

What about the missed holding foul as Maggette is catching the ball or the handcheck that causes one of Maggette's travels? :D

And the NFL hasn't?

Just about every rule in the passing game has to do with increasing passing and making it easier to pass. Hence the reason you can chuck a receiver at 3 yards...but at 5.5 yards, it's a penalty...hence the reason pass interference is a spot foul. It's the same reason why you almost never see offensive pass interference versus defensive pass interference. It's why every penalty, save for a few minor penalties, are automatic first downs if committed by the defense. It's also the reason why the passer (mainly the QB) is the most protected player in the game. If you could see how long the section on roughing the passer and other roughness penalties against the quarterback is in the NFL rule book is, you'd see how much of a point they make it to protect the quarterback (fans know the QB...and they love high scoring passing games).

Let's not kid ourselves...the NFL likes when there are high scoring games that involve the passing game and have adjusted the playing rules to try and influence that. I'm guessing they wouldn't mind going to one foot inbounds versus two, if it wasn't so ingrained in fans.

Passing interference rules, penalty enforcements (automatic first downs), illegal contact rules (automatic first downs and does not apply at the other levels at all), hitting defenseless players, roughing the passer rules and interpretations, tackle box classification for throwing the ball away, timing rules like 2 minute warning and I could name a lot of other things that are totally different from the NF and NCAA level that are allowed at the NFL level. One PI call can give you more yards than any other penalty and often is debated when they are called. The Brady Rule was to keep the starting QB in the game for low hits that took their knees out. That was not done just for safety as those rules do not apply at all in HS or college. A sideline catch is a minimal issue to scoring than I can get 50 yards on a PI call on a scoring drive. There are 300 plus rules differences between HS and pro and 200 plus for NCAA to pro and most are to allow certain actions that would allow more scoring either directly or indirectly. And you might have noticed I did not talk about helmet hits or other issues the media focuses on all the time.

So does the NFL and so does MLB. Do you think the DH rule is so that scoring is not higher and to keep players that cannot keep up in the field around? Even hockey has rules that allowed for more movement and more penalties because scoring at one time was at the rate of soccer and they changed rules to make these things happen. The NBA is not the only pro league that has rules

Peace

And that has what to do with backcourt violation?

Precisely, you saved me much typing.

See Camron post.

IDK... thought I was on another thread :o Wheres the coffee pot?

I don't know what any of this NBA, NCAA, NFL , MLB crap has to do with the situation but I agree with fullor.

The Miami player committed a backcourt violation that any 15 y/o working a 7&U league would have called. It was as blatant as any you'll see, yet an NBA official didn't make the call.

My son tells me ESPN's NOT Top Ten today had Lebron taking six steps from the top of the key before getting fouled....said he carried the ball like a football. Haven't found THAT video yet. But, I'm a lookin! ;)

The play in question:

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KP-UJiPxKTM" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Under NFHS and NCAA rules, this is a clear violation. It is not so under NBA rules. The defense bats the ball away...thus that ends team control. Turiaf then tries to control the ball..the first initial push to the floor could be considered control...thus he had a positive position in the frontcourt with the ball and the subsequent actions would constitute a backcourt violation.

If the calling official did not believe that constituted control, when Turiaf gains control of the ball, he's in the air...he has not attained a positive position with the ball. His right foot lands in the front, and his left foot appears as though it might have landed on the midcourt line. This would mean he attained a positive position with the ball in the backcourt...which in this case would be legal.

Great explanation.

I think the non-calling official had a terrible view of the play, it looked like he got caught moving toward the endline, then couldn't see the play at all, so instead of guessing he didn't have a whistle. I didn't mind the play at all, he didn't see it, so we don't guess.

I did mind his body language.

If you notice, the trail official had a less than advantageous position because the lead starts a rotating to the opposite side...but the ball gets swung to the wing table side and the lead stops his rotation and he's back. The trail was in the process of rotating to the new slot/center position when the deflection occurred. I still think he ended up getting a decent enough look...and the slot/center official helped out on the play as well and had nothing as well.

Agree.
For that matter, I don't even think he had control until the last time he picked it up to pass it to his teammate (simultaneous with him stepping back into the frontcourt). His hands were never solidly on the ball until after he dropped it, hopped, and landed fully in the backcourt.

Agreed

I think his body language suggests that he was straining to see the play. Also if you notice in the initial live play, right before it cuts, he starts to make a motion like the ball got tipped. It's extremely hard to see and I had to rewind it several times to make it out, not sure why he did that mechanic.

I thought the no call, no guess, is the correct call. The C definitely had the better look and was helping.

He did that tip to indicate that Turiaf could retrieve the ball in the backcourt...even though he was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt. Team control, under NBA rules, ends when the defense deflects it and such you'll see officials in an NBA indicate a deflection by the defense when it involves backcourt plays.

Stop.......put down the telecaster! it's backcourt

And by the way, thanks for posting all these videos, well done, terrific discussion pieces

You said yourself you have no idea "what they see/don't see in the NBA". As I said in my initial post, you didn't give enough information to say if the call was correct or not. No mention of there being a deflection by the defense (which is a BIG deal on this play). And after posting the play, it's not nearly as blatant as you made it out to be, and may even by a correct call according to NBA rules.

And no problem with the video...so much easier to talk about plays with video rather than A1's and B1's ;)

I won't post much on here at all anymore, but this is not a backcourt violation in the least!!! Even if he did control it we deal with momentum as well. What APG said is right, but one thing he forgot involving positive position is that we allow for momentum... We don't expect a player to gather the ball at the last second and then stop on a dime just for backcourt purposes. If he re-gathers after the deflection but his momentum carries him into the backcourt that is a legal play under NBA rules.

Like it or don't like it, it doesn't matter they applied the rule correctly.

#1, who is this "we" you speak of? Are you an NBA official?

#2, where can this "momentum rule" be found?

#2, so if this same play happens and he steps OOB instead of backcourt, the "momentum rule" allows his team to keep the ball?

Btaylor is an NBA D-League official and has worked NBA games as of this year. And when he talks about momentum, it only deals with backcourt calls and only in specific situations...when the ball is loose (as in no team control), from a jump ball, a throw-in in the final two minutes of the 4th/OT, or a defensive player.

He's been in the D-League for a little while now and he has worked NBA games this season.

Thanks for posting the video. And first thing I thought when viewing is that this play was not some cut-n-dry backcourt as was first presented. I had no idea about the momentum aspect of the BC rule but I knew TC rules are different.

I agree, wasn't close to being as blatant as we were lead to believe at first. And turns out, it was a no call correct.

And the momentum aspect only applies when the ball is loose, from a throw-in in the final two minutes of the 4th and/or OT, when the defense steals the ball, or from a jump ball.

Who are you guys, his press secretaries? He can't answer his own questions?

Great. Again, rule reference please.

The rule in question:

Rule 4, Section V

g. Frontcourt/backcourt status is not attained until a player with the ball has established a positive position in either half during (1) a jump ball, (2) a steal by a defensive player, (3) a throw-in in the last two minutes of the fourth period and/or any overtime period or (4) any time the ball is loose

Positive position, as btaylor told you, deals with momentum.

Found that for ya
 

Not the NOT TOP 10, but the play that got him there.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6sz7nth45P8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

I don't like it and here's why:

1. the NBA professes to put a product on display featuring some of the most agile, strong, and skilled athletes on the planet.
--So given #1, why does the league need rules about momentum? These fantastic athletes should be able to run, jump, shoot, and stop as needed within the boundaries of the court (or frontcourt and backcourt). If the necessary actions can't be done, then shouldn't that be a turnover and possession awarded to the opposing team?

2. the NBA is an entertainment show first and a competition second.
--in my opinion it ranks somewhere between the Harlem Globetrotters and olympic ice skating. According to everything written by the poster above, it would impossible to state definitively whether a decision was correct or not because there is so much gray area and room for personal judgment in assessing the situation. That means that there really isn't a rule at all. The practical application is that whatever the guys with the whistle choose to allow is fine. Much like whatever score the East German judge wishes to post despite the fact that everyone watching knows it to be bogus. So let's face it, in the end, the league doesn't really care about traveling, backcourt, or basket interference. It just wants to create superstars for marketing and ringing the cash register.

3. the NBA writes its rules to cater to the desires of its paying customers--namely the fans and TV producers. If the fans want more scoring, that is what the league attempts to legislate.
--The restricted area, "upward movement" for block/charge decisions, and "two-count rhythm" which the league uses for establishing a pivot are all examples of this. Why can't these guys avoid defenders near the basket, make a six-foot jumpshot, and come to stop after catching a pass without taking multiple steps?

The "rules" that the NBA writes effectively reduce the game officials to clowns running around the circus. If someone wants to take the money for being part of its show, then that is certainly his choice, but don't try to convince me that these people are doing anything more than stage acting.

All I can say about Nevada's opinion is..."interesting."

http://tpww.net/forums/images/smilies/blah.gif

That is not the first time we have heard that here.

Peace

Why the game? You know exactly who Ben is? Those of us who have been on this forum for a while know who he is.

Interesting and spot on.

If that is the case, then that is pro sports in a nutshell. Everything he suggested is exactly the logic on many levels with every sport. My point is be consistent, say the same thing about the NFL, NHL and MLB, because it is all entertainment and rules are there to entertain.

Peace

If that is your opinion then you are entitled to it and no one here wants to change that. Now, if you are so adamant about how terrible the NBA is, then kindly ignore any threads about NBA Basketball and wait until you find one that piques your interest and you can offer something constructive. Interjecting your opinions does nothing to help people here discuss plays or learn about the NBA if they so desire.

Warmest regards,

Fools Rush In ...
 

The Basketball Forum encourages discussions on rules, and mechanics, for NFHS, NCAAM, NCAAW, FIBA, NBA, and WNBA. Heck, we've even discussed "driveway" basketball here. We will occasionally have problems when we try to compare one rule set, or mechanics set, to another. That's why you will seldom see me post on anything other than two person NFHS. Anything else is "uncharted territory" for me, and if I attempt to do otherwise, I usually end up making a fool out of myself, which for me, isn't very hard to do, even when I stick to NFHS.

Why does it matter, as long as your question is answered?

Then your problem is with professional sports. And if you only want to attribute this to the NBA, then you're not consistent.

And I don't know about you, but personally, I don't like crapping on an entire group of officials...it kind of goes against everything this forum is suppose to be about.

Well, I did reread Nevada's post and I guess I'll retract spot on, although I do agree philosophically with parts.

I disagree with baseball comparison it's either fair or foul, out or safe.

IMHO you will see some wavering on strike zone depending on who is doing what. Only area you can play favorites.

I swear Greg Maddux had 6-8 inches either side

Au contraire, your problem is assuming I have a problem.

Well there you go. ;)

Peace

So where is the rule that defines "a positive position" and how it deals with momentum?

Perhaps you know everybody here but I've been here for over 12 years and I have no idea who he is. I don't follow the careers of NBDL officials. Had I known who he was, I wouldn't have had reason to ask.

It hasn't been. As I asked above, where is the rule that explains "positive player position" and this momentum exception btaylor64 referred to?

You actually won't find "positive position" mentioned anywhere else in the rule book. For whatever reason, the NBA has decided it's not a big deal to further define what positive position is.

So it's not in rule book at all? C'mon, all the momentum hocus pocus discussed here? This what I'm alluding to.

Anyway, not a big deal. I still contend back court and someone missed an easy call..........like all of us have done.

By the way, my faith was restored in the NBA last night as a travel was called along with a 5 second inbounding violation in a critical part of the Bulls/Pistons game.

They must have been reading this thread.

Is everything you know about officiating and what a rule means found in the rulebook (NCAA or NFHS)? No. Many things are clarified through interpretations and bulletins...and even by tribal knowledge regarding common things.

The fact that the rule mentions "positive position" implies that there is something about it that matters. The fact that it isn't spelled out explicitly in the book doesn't mean it isn't defined in some manner elsewhere.

Watch Out For The Flying Pigs ...
 

Yeah. NBA officials read this Forum all the time, and use the suggestions that we make to help them to make calls in their games. Now you better take cover, because the black helicopters are coming for you.

Camron, come back to the herd......we're discussing a specific rule. To the uninitiated(possibly me) we have a backcourt violation as seen on tape.

Is this a rule or not? Taylor says yes, you seem to feel it's nuance or philosophy.

Much ado about nothing as that old feller said. If it is a rule(albeit a poor one IMHO) I can sit smuggly at a game or in a bar when it happens and give condescending looks at fans and tell them they don't know the rules. I'd rather do that than explain they sorta don't want to call that.


From bgtaylor

What APG said is right, but one thing he forgot involving positive position is that we allow for momentum... We don't expect a player to gather the ball at the last second and then stop on a dime just for backcourt purposes. If he re-gathers after the deflection but his momentum carries him into the backcourt that is a legal play under NBA rules.
Like it or don't like it, it doesn't matter they applied the rule correctly.

In the rule, there is the term "positive position". It is clearly meant to mean something. If you don't know and can't tell what it means, you can't argue that it means anything one way or the other. Since it is not defined IN the book, it must be defined by interpretation....and if that interpretation includes momentum, then it includes momentum. There is not much you or I have to dispute that.

To me, it sounds like (and this is only by inferring from the discussion and what I've seen called), "positive position" means a clear and stable position.

Much like the NFHS and NCAA allow exceptions in the cases of throwins, steals, etc. in order to not have violations they feel are not consistent with the real purpose of the rule, the NBA appears allow an additional exception after defensive deflections...and those exceptions appear to include allowing the offensive team to recover the ball without fear splitting hairs at the division line and resulting in a backcourt violation.

The momentum interpretation is included as part of "positive position." How do you know this? Because someone who works under the freaking rule set and gets direction from the League has told you.

Realistically speaking, the rule book is written for their officials and those who work under the rule set. The NBA doesn't need worry about making sure its rule book is as fully comprehensive as the NFHS basketball rule book.

Yep, just like I figured. It's not in there. :D

BTW, that's a weak a$$ explanation. :D :D

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here...if anything? Are you saying btaylor isn't telling the truth? Are you hung up on the fact that positive position isn't explicitly defined in the rules book?

Not hung up on anything. Just real obvious that there's nothing in the NBA Rules to support his "momentum" statement. That's why I asked for him, and not you or BNR, to clarify it. Instead, we got nothing.

Now, if if the rule doesn't exists and they call it that way because that's how they're told to call it, fine. But if that's true, then it's just another reason NBA officials take so much heat from owners, coaches, players, fans and the media. The NBA places officials at a disadvantage with that type of crap.

If that's the way you're going to call it, then put it in the damn book. There's no reason not to.

BNR answered whether or not BTaylor worked in the NBA, not what the rule was. You definitely seemed to be hung up on that bit information. :rolleyes:

It seems like it is....under "positive position". It may not be explicitly defined but those were are not just there to look good. Since it isn't defined, no one can say there is nothing about momentum in the book since that may be exactly what that phrase is talking about.

I agree, except with the NBA, there's a finite number of officials, hired by the same people who write and interpret the rules. It wouldn't be nearly as difficult to disseminate this interpretation to all of the officials as it would to high school or even college officials; none of whom are hired by the folks that actually write and interpret the rules (with the exception of 67 games at the end of the NCAA season.)

While I agree they should definitely make the rule match the interpretation, it's not as vital for the NBA as it is for the NFHS (like, say, the back court rule).