[Video Request] Backcourt off of halfcourt pass/shot?
 

Hi guys,

I'm wondering if someone still has a link to the video where the guy passes/shoots at halfcourt then the ball bounces back into the backcourt with the official calling backcourt violation? Thanks in advance to anyone who finds and shares the link!

Found it:

Kaelen Riley CHS vs Coosa - YouTube

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4HMwDfaWG2o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did we ever come up with a consensus on the ruling?

consensus should be no backcourt. By rule, the criteria for backcourt violation are not met.

Team control ends when the ball is released on a try or tap for goal. Therefore, there can be no backcourt violation.

We all know the rule. The debate (and lack of consensus) was whether or not this is judged to be a try.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0pQMdZ32nSI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here is a play from an inbound.

Yeah, that's a video we discussed here a while back. Definitely not a BC violation.

No debate there IMO...incorrect call.

I can't speak for why this official made the call, but this is a call that has only become more confusing for many officials with the addition of team control on a throw in. Without the additional change to the BC rule, this would have been a violation (Team control, Front court status, last to touch, first to touch). With the additional change to the BC rule *, there are other plays that are not, by rule, violations, but should still be judged the same as previous years.

Not everyone gets the memo that says "call the BC like you always have, that's not what we wanted to change," and the longer that rule stays the way it is, the more this will be missed. Eventually, the rules committee will likely just adopt and accept the changes if they don't fix it soon.

* The additional change is the additional requirement of "player" control in the front court.

There was clearly a debate. There were many that felt that was not a try and, therefore, by rule, a backcourt violation.

They were talking about the video dvboa posted, which was a throw in play, not a try.

hmm... I watched it again. It hadn't even occured to me when watching it the first time that this might have been a pass. There was one offensive player in the area that is in position to attempt a rebound if it had been an airball, but I don't like to guess on violations. If I'm not reasonably sure a violation occured (travel, oob, backcourt, etc), I'm not calling something. I don't know how you can be "sure" in this case that it was a pass.

Now if this happened in the middle of the quarter, that's different. But in an end of game situation, a half court heave in the direction of the basket (that hits the basket as added evidence) ... I'm treating that like a shot.

On second look, a couple other thoughts:
1) We can't see the C in the clip. Would his signal (3 pt attempt or not) matter? Perhaps the T saw that the C did not signal a shot, and therefore called the violation.
2) If you're the C and you signal a 3 pt attempt, do you run over to the T and share this with them?

Again, not saying this happened since we can't see the C, but how do you administer something like this. If C signaled something that would make the T's call wrong by rule, what do you do? Is it still the T's call to change, even though the key factor (shot or no shot) occured in the C's primary?

I see...and agree. Two videos referenced in one thread got me. I only watch one.

The 2nd one was indeed an incorrect call, no question.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4HMwDfaWG2o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
On this play I would have to say no team control off the first release. Can't tell if the ball is touched by the defender but you can easily argue this was a shot attempt especially without video replay. It would be a harder sell to call this a backcourt violation.

We're paid to make a judgement of what the player is doing in that case (or attempting to do). You can make a decision or look for reasons to avoid making the decision. Rationalizations for not blowing the whistle don't make it the right call. If that player were fouled as he was trying to throw the ball and it never got out of his hands (or was knocked askew such that it never got anywhere near the backboard) would you be putting them on the line for 3 shots? What was the player trying to do? That is what we're paid to determine. The definition of try does not include what the ball hits, only what the player is trying to do. It can even be a try when it hits nothing.

If it was with 1 second left, I'd tend to consider it a shot. However, when there is plenty of time for 2-3 passes or for the ball to bounce back as far as it did, I'm not assuming it was a shot unless it looks like a shot.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QfC0iCkFlf0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Watch B3's reaction after he throws the ball, that the reaction of a player who threw an errant pass, IMO. I had already been on the side of "pass" when the video first came out. This is the first time I paid attention to B3 after he threw the ball. Now I'm more convinced.

Eh, looks like very little time left on the clock judging from everyone's reaction to the hail mary. I'm not guessing intent here as to shot versus pass. No BC violation on my part.

What I'd like to find out is how does an official reconcile this play if the call is ruled to be an inadvertent whistle? Would you count the basket based on when the official blew his whistle, which was at the point where the offensive player touched the ball?

You would go to the POI for the whistle.

For some reason, I can't hear the sound. If the whistle blew when the player had the ball, you give the offense the ball for a throw in at the spot nearest where he touched the ball.

If the whistle blew while the ball was in the air for the last shot, you count the basket. All of this is assuming you want to go back and reverse the call.

I think it's probably the right call, by rule. I'm not sure I'd make it, though, as I'm more likely to have judged it a shot.

Where is the controversy?
 

In the original play, the player jumps in his backcourt. He attempts a pass to the player in the corner, the ball gets deflected by the defender. There is never player control in the front court, the ball bounces back into the backcourt where the kid makes a tremendous 3 point shot.

Count the basket with great enthusiasm and walk off to court knowing you did a job well done.

If my partner blows his whistle on this for a backcourt, we're going POI, which is the ball in mid air, we're still counting that basket.

Edit: I guess this wasn't the original play, this was the last second shot.

Another Edit: This was the original play that was requested :)

And this is the problem with the team control change and the half-hearted attempts by the rule committee to keep the BC rule the same. They explicitly stated they want everything called the same as before, except for whether free throws are shot. Yet this particular change leads to rulings like Toren notes here, which are incorrect by the intent of the committee, but correct by a literal reading of the rule.

Note: This post assumes the original throw is not ruled a try.

Are you talking about the first video, where the official called a BC on a last second shot, or the video where there was a foul on the last second shot?

Shooting foul, intentional if there's any time on the clock.

Shooter had gathered the ball and started his shooting motion.

The last second made basket that was waived off by a backcourt violation

Why intentional if there's time on the clock?

He was fouled while coming down on the jump stop. Can you be in a shooting motion when you still landing? I can see going with a shot, however, it it made sense to be shooting at the time...the horn sounded.

However, I can't see going intentional on that in any case. That defender just got caught in the air and was actually trying to avoid hitting him.

In that case, I'm removing my strike line. If that's a pass, that's a BC violation.

I don't think I can tell if he's doing his jump stop or his shot (I can see your point), and I agree with not going intentional after watching it again. The shooter was definitely moving into the defender, making it look far worse than it really was.

Actually, this would be a violation because of 9-9-2, causing "the ball to go from backcourt to the frontcourt and return to the backcourt without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt."

Had an offensive player tipped it in the FC on its way back, it would have been a violation under the old rules, and thus by intent of the committee; it would not, however, be a violation under a literal reading of 9-9-1.

I have a tipped ball in the front court by the defender. The pass is being thrown to the player in the corner and gets deflected by the defender.

So I have team control maintained throughout, no player control in the front court by the offense. And I have the defender causing the ball to go into the back court.

So I have a legal play, score the basket.

I don't see any tip by a defender in the FC. There may have been a tip at the point of the pass, though, and that would make the play legal.

Whether there is player control in the FC, however, is not relevant.

TC is required. Not TC contol in the front court. Your reasoning for it not being a BC violation is not valid.

My reasoning is valid. I added a detail that didn't need to be included for the back court violation discussion, but when I referee I like to know all the details of the play.

In a short conference I would have said, the defender deflected the ball into the back court.

How would you have a back court violation without TC in the front court?

Your reasoning is still invalid:

"So I have team control maintained throughout, no player control in the front court by the offense..." is what you wrote.

The reason, based on your new details, would be that the offense was not the last to touch when the ball had front court status. Player control in the front court is completely irrelevant.

You can't.

Correct, that's what I wrote. Those are the details of what I saw. That's not the reasoning for why I don't have a back court.

The reason I don't have a backcourt is the defender gave the ball back court status.

I apologize for not being clear on that.

Just to be clear, if we're talking about the original video in this thread, and if the defender did not touch it, then the ball gains frontcourt status as it hits the backboard:

4-4-5: A ball which touches the front faces or edges of the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds;

4-13-1: A team’s frontcourt consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.

So with 9-9-2 (below) it should be judged that the play was a backcourt violation, unless of course the throw is considered to be a shot which nullifies the first requirement in 9-9-2:

ART. 2 . . . While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.

Correct