Purdue v. Michigan Backcourt violation
 

At 6:35 in the second half there is a good back court violation by the crew. If someone has the video please clip it up for review. This is a play that often gets complaints but was 100% correct.

Peace

Can you explain on that... I'm watching the game on my DVR and just saw it. Same ref that signaled the ball was tipped was the same one that made the over and back call. I don't understand and am curious to hear why that was correct.

It makes no difference whether the ball was tipped. It only matters who last touched the ball before it went into the BC and who touched it first after it had been in the BC.

Criteria for a backcourt violation

1. Team control (and player control when coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves a frontcourt status
3. Team in control is the last to touch the ball while the ball has a frontcourt status.
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after the ball gains backcourt status.

From that, you should be able to deduce why the play was correct.

Didn't see any part of it but if he signaled that it was tipped and then called a backcourt violation it means the ball touched or was touched by the offense in the frontcourt after the tip before being recovered in the backcourt.

Ok that makes since then... the Mich player touched the ball right before crossing over the half court line and then went into the backcourt.

The signal was used to give information to his partner. Not saying it should have been given, but it appears the Center official was the one signaling. But when the Michigan player touched the ball before it went to the back court and then put the ball in the front court, it was a violation. But when the ball was originally tipped, was tipped by the defensive player and in order to not have a violation the Michigan player should have just let the ball go in the back court. It was an unusual play because usually the player just lets it get to the back court, but then again the Purdue player was closing hard and even make a play on the ball which forced the unfortunate action by the Michigan player.

Peace

Here's the play...
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8_q3BU7zWoY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Proper call, and the C made it.

Absolutely the right call. He gave the tip call, so I am assuming the trail saw it and was not going to call the BC. Looks like the C made the call when he realized trail was not going to. That is why it is a bit late. No problem with the C taking this.

Correct call. While the C made it and the play started in his area, there is no reason for the trail to not get this. It was absolutely obvious that the offense touched it last before going to the backcourt. That was clearly visible to the trail. It was his call to make and he just wasn't going to make it. The only tip the C could have been signally was at the original spot of the ball and would have no bearing on the rest of the play since the offense next touched the ball after that point while still in the frontcourt.

We had this discussion recently about why some backcourt calls such as this are not being made. There were some suggestions made. In this case, it can't be because the trail could tell who touched it when. It can't be because of the tip of the defender. He saw everything he needed to see. It is more likely he just didn't know the rule correctly...even at that level...and his C bailed him out.

As the play turned out, the tip was irrelevant.

Yep. And, given that it happend in the middle of a rotation, either official could have made the call.

I try not to give the "tip" signal until the ball gets to the BC -- until then it doesn't mean anything and might just confuse.

That makes sense. Something I will try.

Do you think the T might have held up on making the call because he saw the C giving a tip signal? I ask because the ball was in the C's primary at the start. The ball starts heading towards BC and the T isn't sure why. He sees the tip signal and freezes up.

Again, just a theory. Not foolproof given A1 ended up bringing the ball into the backcourt anyway but just a thought.