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

[Afrosheen]

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!

[Afrosheen]

Found it:

Kaelen Riley CHS vs Coosa - YouTube

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

Found it:

Kaelen Riley CHS vs Coosa - YouTube

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

[HokiePaul]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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.

[dvboa]

Here is a play from an inbound.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by dvboa

Here is a play from an inbound.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by dvboa

Here is a play from an inbound.

No debate there IMO...incorrect call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by dvboa

Here is a play from an inbound.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Originally Posted by APG

No debate there IMO...incorrect call.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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.

[dvboa]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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?

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.