Backcourt Violation? with Video

[Freddy]

Agree on the no-call. Had one not quite as goofy in a post-season tourney game last week that brought half the stands out of their seats to protest, but got the no-call right.
One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Freddy

One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.

The only time we're allowed to use that signal is for 60-second time outs.

The philosophy here is, if there's no need for a count, there's no need for a spead-arms signal. Just don't signal. See also violation. If there's no violation, there's no need to signal anything.

As for "play on" in soccer, that signal actually acknowledges there was a foul, but to whistle it would kill any advantage the offense already has. "Play on" doesn't mean "there was no foul."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Agree on the no-call. Had one not quite as goofy in a post-season tourney game last week that brought half the stands out of their seats to protest, but got the no-call right.
One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.

I've pointed to the floor where a player coming from the BC has landed just before catching a pass from the FC. This is to indicate that the landing happened first.

I support the additional information.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've pointed to the floor where a player coming from the BC has landed just before catching a pass from the FC. This is to indicate that the landing happened first.

I support the additional information.

Regarding floor point .... Yup

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Freddy

...One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.

I think that signal was completely instintual -- probably in reaction to/in anticipation of noise from the bench wanting a violation called. It clearly conveyed the message that the ref had it the whole way and (correctly) had no call.

As far as making this signal standard, I don't think you can do that. Technically speaking, the official has to be able to continue the 10 second count should the player catching the ball remain in the backcourt.

[MD Longhorn]

It's not standard, but it's similar to the "safe" signal in baseball or softball in a weird case where your signal is merely conveying "I saw that, and it's nothing".

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Freddy

One item in particular I was interested to see in the video was the unofficial spread-arms signal used by the official. I don't think the official meant it as the standard "not closely guarded" signal. That, to me anyway, clearly conveyed the message, "I saw what just happened but I've got nothing." Seems to be like what soccer has with their "play on" signal.
I like that and wouldn't mind seeing it or something similar become a standard signal.

I could see the other point of view (don't use the mechanic), but it seemed the best way to communicate to all at the time.

[Camron Rust]

I agree...no call. The passer was still in the backcourt when the ball was passed.

[OKREF]

The "not closely guarded signal" is an official signal, it was added to the official signals this year. Number 12 on the signal chart of the rule book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The "not closely guarded signal" is an official signal, it was added to the official signals this year. Number 12 on the signal chart of the rule book.

The "not closely guarded" signal was removed from the IAABO mechanics manual at the beginning of the 2012-13 season. I guess they figure that if you're not counting, you don't have a closely guarded count. Stupid IAABO mechanics. What was wrong with the NFHS mechanics that we were using for many, many years?

[csb1971]

Had a play identical to this earlier in the season. It was close, but the kid's foot was still in the backcourt. The coach and crowed howled, but there was nothing to call!

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The "not closely guarded" signal was removed from the IAABO mechanics manual at the beginning of the 2012-13 season. I guess they figure that if you're not counting, you don't have a closely guarded count. Stupid IAABO mechanics. What was wrong with the NFHS mechanics that we were using for many, many years?

I don't use it all the time. However in some situations I will. For example if it is a close tight game and there is a lot of ball pressure I will use it to make sure that all coaches know they aren't closely guarded.

[letemplay]

Altering the video sitch a hair, what if the player HAD BOTH feet in the frontcourt but had yet to get the ball across and then shovel passed it off his dribble to his teammate still in backcourt? I realize if player picks up his dribble he has front court status and this play would be a violation, but would there need to be clear end of dribble and player control to give ball front court status?