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.

I'd love to hear what the announcers are saying, especially when they circled the C.

Not relevant as the only tip the C could have been signaling was before the next contact by the offense as the signal was already past by the time the offensive player contact the the ball in the FC. When the offense then touched the ball again, the T had everything he needed to know. I've seen too many cases where it is only one official involved where they still don't call that a violation. Some just don't understand the rule...they think that a defensive tip absolves the offense from a backcourt violation regardless of what else happens. That, I believe, is the case in the NBA, but not NCAA or NFHS.

In the NBA, a tip by the defense ends team control...thus why this isn't a violation in the NBA and why at other levels, officials will catch grief for (correctly) calling this a violation.

At the FED and NCAA levels if this were a long rebound would we consider A1 to be in PC when he dribbled the ball into the backcourt?

I wouldn't split hairs that closely if this was off a rebound. I'd have A1 gaining player control in the backcourt.

Agreed. THe first dribble the ball hit in the BC, so the three-points rule applies and A1 is in the BC.

Huh?

Player control, and thus team control, doesn't begin until the first dribble hits the floor? :confused:

Doesn't the 3 points rule apply coming from BC to FC and not visa versa? :confused:

expand please...
 

I generally signal the "tip" as soon as it looks possible the ball will end up in the BC. While I don't want to confuse anybody, my thought is it gives the other official; "C" or "T"; info that prevents the IW or incorrect call.

Can you expand on why you wait until the ball is in BC?

Since you asked...

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mISa6z54q-Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You're the C, I'm the T.

You signal tip, I whistle BC violation.

Now we have a miss, no different than a blarge.

This is why I don't use the "tip" signal on BC situations or blocked shots. If I ever use this signal, it's on an OOB play on my line after the ball is dead.

LOL.

"We don't know our a** from a hole in the ground but they pay us to sit here and convince everyone we know what we're talking about".

Idiots.

I can see where bob is coming from.

PC, TC, and the dribble all start at the same time since there was never a catch so he is considering that the entire play is during a a dribble and subject to the 3-points rule. I can buy that as there really isn't anything to say that there any one is considered to have happened first.

Even if the 3 point rule did apply, this would still be a violation. All 3 points must cross the line before location changes. They did in this case. In no case is it necessary that all 3 points are in the place of origin.

I don't give the tip signal. In this case it may have caused confusion.

What is interesting here, and it happens to me sometimes, is that the L was flexing during this play and the C didn't see it happen. And rightly so since he was concentrating on the play in his primary. If I miss a flex by the L it is usually because I am the C and locked in on the ball.

One could say he was the T not the C. The L rotated into the play.

That's what I meant

We're talking now about a play different from the video.

I got that. But in the video when does player control start? I had this exact play earlier this year on a throw-in. It made my whistle a tick late as I asked myself whether the original touch at the top of the dribble was the start of player control. I said it was, much like this video. The touch was in the frontcourt, the ball bounced in the backcourt. Violation.

I'm very confused. In the video it doesn't matter wehn PC starts becasue TC was never lost. So when the Michigan player was last to touch / first to touch, it was a violation.

I think I must be missing something about the question.

Edit: Maybe you are asking, suppose the same play happens during a throw-in, instead of during "playing action". In that case, I'd rule the same as in the "rebound question" asked in #19 and answered in #20 and #21

When you guys tweaked the situation to being after a rebound. When does TC/PC start? I don't see why it doesn't start with the touch.

This was exactly my question.

Bob, you said, "The first dribble the ball hit in the BC, so the three-points rule applies and A1 is in the BC."

What difference does that make? If the dribble began when the ball was batted in the FC and stroke the floor in the BC, do we not have over/back when the dribble is again touched?

That's what's confusing JAR and me.

All the contact with the ball was in the front court. The ball touched the back court on after the first dribble attempt.

Peace

All the contact? We know the ball first touches in backcourt. What are you trying to say?

I am talking about the contact with the ball or dribble that put the ball in the backcourt. The Michigan player put the ball in the backcourt, nothing else IMO.

Peace

That's why I asked the question. Don't know that I agree in letting a player start his dribble in the front court with the bounce occurring in the backcourt.

For a rebound/throwin....

Is the start of a dribble considered during a dribble. I was leaning towards it not being a violation but I think I'm changing my mind.

Consider the wording of the 3-points clause for backcourt violations where it mentions "during a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt". To me, that implies that the dribble was already underway in the backcourt. In this case, it is not. So I believe PC and TC have begun on the push towards the floor giving the ball frontcourt status and the and the exception doesn't apply since it is not a dribble from backcourt to frontcourt.