Louisville / NCAT video request (added)
 

Charge called at 8:14, 1st half. I'm guessing when the L sees this, he'll wish he had it over again. 2 feet down, but the upper body seems to be still sliding forward.

While we're at it, the backcourt violation called at 7:46, 1st half.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/46kNrd9D1Hk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8MUn-CkFC3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah both were bad decisions. No LGP on the block/charge in the first vid. On the 2nd one the trail should have called the foul when the defender knocked the player into the backcourt.

1st play: Should have been a block but it wasn't the worst call I've ever seen. Sometimes we get 'em wrong.

2nd play: Should have been a foul. But it wasn't even a BC violation, no part of A1 was in the backcourt when he regained possession.

Play 1 should have been a "no call" & Play 2 should be a foul, but no B/C violation, maybe hard to see this from the position the new trail is, but, the heel does not touch in the backcourt.

Yep -- the foul caused an illegal dribble, and then I don't have the ball ever reaching the BC (but this part is very close).

Yes, looking at it a second time, this should have been a block. And, Yes we sometimes get 'em wrong.

I don't see an illegal dribble...you could make a case for a travel as the right foot (pivot) is off the ground when he starts his dribble

yes, that's the part I saw. Just misspoke.

Interesting
 

Play 2 has a lot going on. Looks like a foul. However, if we pass on the foul, two things come to mind. If the ball leaving the offensive players hand is the start of a dribble, then we have a travel.

If the offensive player loses control of the ball and the ball hitting the ground is not the start of a dribble, he establishes backcourt status and doesn't regain frontcourt status before dribbling the ball. Team control maintained throughout...backcourt violation.

Yes he does regain FC status -- foot on floor in FC, nothing touching the BC before he touches the ball.

It's close, I see back foot touching in backcourt at time of touching of the ball.

On the first one, I think the L was still moving and picked up the defender late. When that happens, we tend to go with the charge. I'm not ripping the guy, I just am looking at this to see what I can learn from it.

I'm pretty sure that none of us would have got that backcourt violation call correct. Even as I stop the play when the ball touches the hand it is nearly impossible to tell if that back foot is still on the ground or not.

But, If it was a dribble (and I think the initial release was a dribble) he does not return to the FC until the both feet touch entirely in the frontcourt. The back foot in the air, due to the 3-points clause, is still in the backcourt.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it should have been a foul to start with.


This brings up an interesting question. We know that a dribbler who steps on the OOB line has violated even if they are not touching the ball at the time they step OOB. What about the division line? It doesn't specify that. Does the mere fact that a dribbler steps on the division line give the ball backcourt status? I think it does, indirectly through the 3-points rule.

That's only on a dribble from the BC to the FC. Since this dribble started in the FC, it doesn't apply.

(But your question / point about touching the BC while dribbling is interesting. I haven't watched again -- was this an interrupted dribble?)

I don't think it was interrupted.

But, on the original point, since the dribbler gains BC status by stepping in the BC, does it then become, technically, a dribble from BC to FC. We have a dribble, we have a dribbler, that dribbler is in the BC. When does a dribbler who is in the BC gain FC status? Is that perhaps the spirit of the rule? That would also cover most cases of a dribbler stepping on the line.

He began his dribble in the frontcourt in the video. He touched the backcourt after releasing the ball then when he touched the ball again he was no longer touching the back court.

I understand what you're trying to ask but 3-points doesn't apply to this play as he never dribbled while in the back court. Now if you are saying is should be a BC violaton b/c he stepped in the backcourt DURING his dribble I can understand the logic.

He was a dribbler. He gained backcourt status. That makes him a dribbler in the backcourt. He then became a dribbler in the backcourt who was coming the frontcourt....all during the dribble. I'm not so sure it doesn't apply.

In a sense, I guess I'm suggesting that the ball has the same status as the dribbler when the dribbler steps in the backcourt even if the ball itself never touches in the backcourt or is never touched by the dribbler while in the BC....a lot like OOB. The dribbler is in effect treated as if they're touching the ball 100% of the time as far as court location is concerned.

Imagine a different play....a guard circling very high near the division line and clearly dribbling the ball. The dribbler steps on the line. Do you really think that we need to know whether the dribbler was touching the ball precisely at that moment or does the dribbler get to step in the backcourt as long as they don't touch the ball while their foot is down?

He began his dribble in the front court, you're ignoring that part of the play. How can he began his dribble in the frontcourt and also be afforded 3-points privileges?

Because he then took it to the backcourt by stepping in the backcourt. The moment he stepped in the backcourt while he was dribbling, he was a dribbler in the backcourt. At that point, he would, being that it was during a dribble and being located in the backcourt, remain in the backcourt until he touched all 3 items in the frontcourt.

I think that it should be a violation no matter how you try to slice it as the rules never intended for a dribbler to be able to step into the backcourt during a dribble.

You either call a violation for a frontcourt dribbler gaining backcourt status or you call nothing since he didn't touch the ball while touching the backcourt.

But to say that he was dribbling in the frontcourt, gained backcourt status, and that he has to have both feet touch the frontcourt to avoid the violation is utterly ridiculous.