N.C. State/Purdue (Video)
 

I'm hoping someone can upload the video once the game is over, but at about the 14:30 mark (give or take) of the second half, N.C. State player beaten badly down low. Purdue players goes for lay-up, N.C. state player gives what looked to be a clear 2 hand shove in the back. Officials called the foul, then went to monitor to review it, but stayed with a common foul.

To me, this is about as clear of a flagrant 1 as you can get. Anybody see anything that might have caused the crew to stick with a common foul?

John Adams just sent out a bulletin criticizing officials for not properly ruling some FF1 & 2 plays.

That said, I have not seen the play in question.

I would also like to see someone comment on the play noted in this article:

ACC Basketball: Strange ruling costs N.C. State a chance to tie Purdue - Fayetteville Observer: ACC Basketball

I don't work NCAA, but it sounds like the rule quoted is meant to apply to loose balls. His teammate is still holding the ball when he comes back in bounds, so he wouldn't be "first to touch".

That's a pretty basic NCAA rule. If you go OOB of your own volition, you cannot catch the first pass after you return.

Here's the NC State-Clemson video from the article, would you call this?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AAo0d2lvPx0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nope, not that one.

Not disagreeing, but why not?

Thanks!

The contact from the defender.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/UTiNtC5k07U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

By definition, that is an Intentional/F1 but it is often called an common.

So then I guess I'm missing something, why would an official go common foul on that instead of the correct rule which would be an intentional/F1? To me that is a clear cut and dry textbook intentional/F1 every time, but it sounds like it isn't called that way, I'm just wondering why.

At the level I work, I can guarantee if I didn't call that an intentional foul, I'd be hearing from my assignor and probably losing games.

No I would not call this intentional or FF1. This is marginal for those classifications at best.

Peace

JRutledge,

How do you consider this marginal? We have a clear 2 hand shove in the back, and no attempt to play the ball. So I'm curious as to why you consider this to be marginal. To me it's a no-brainer, especially at the high school and lower level.

This is a rule differene from fed, isn't it? As I understand NFHS as long as you re-establish in bounds all is good, right?

It is different, but your understanding is wrong. In FED, it's a violation as soon as you go OOB -- there's no "reestablishing" at all.

I can see why the Lead may have called a common foul initially. He had just rotated and may not have had a great angle to see the two handed shove, but rather made the call based on the way the shooter was displaced.
The Trail would have a clear view of the shove, but he is already in a full jog the other direction so he's in no position to help out.

I too would have thought that this would be an easy upgrade after replay, but I must not understand the NCAA interpretation.

No-brainer intentional for me.

Ok, seeing the play, I would say this falls under Adams' criticism.

At the high school level, once a player goes out of bounds of their own volition, it is an immediate violation.

How does that apply in the real world? I assume it doesn't mean a player steps on the line trying to go arounds someone, or delierately leaping up to save a ball that is in the air over out-of-bounds territory and leavng the court in the process. Does it just apply to, for example, running noticeably off the court in an effort to gain a deceptive advantage?

Basically, yes, but I wouldn't limit it to deceptive advantages. It could be a simple tactical advantage such as getting to the other side of a screen to get open.

(numbers added above)

it applies to "going out on the player's own volition" so it does NOT apply to your second example.

By rule it applies to your first, but in the real word it might not (it certainly would if both feet were out of bounds)

your third example would be a T.

Other that the "first to touch the ball" addition in NCAA rules, the concept is the same.

Hey, so I found a copy of the NCAA rules book. Can you help me find where it says this?

The closest I can find is 9-4-1.

"A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation."

But in this case, he's (Player A1 that goes out of bounds) not the first player to touch the ball. His teammate (A2) is still touching the ball and hasn't released a pass, so A2 is the first person to touch the ball after A1 returns from out of bounds. So how can there be a violation?

Is there a case book or AR (whatever the NCAA M version is) for this rule?

10-3-2 says it could also be a technical if it is deceitful.

9-4-1 NCAA-M
Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after his return to the playing court.

See my question above. Isn't the player holding the ball first to touch?

Not according to the interpretation of the rule. The player receiving the pass would be considered the first to touch it.

The rule book doesn't always say exactly what it means or mean exactly what it says.

Replace "first" with "next", if that helps you.

Here's a play: A2 goes OOB around a screen and returns. A1 passes the ball to A2, but the ball is tipped by B1. The pass still makes its way to A2. Violation? ;)

This is obviously not. But back to the interpretation of first pass, that's fine. Is there a case book or released NCAA approved ruling or something of that nature providing that interpretation?

The latest NCAA Men's video bulletin (2 Dec 2014) has an example of this type of play. And 9-4-1 is referenced.

Here's the running OOB play in the Purdue-NC State game:

<iframe class="vine-embed" src="https://vine.co/v/OvO2qAZK1Ju/embed/simple" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script async src="//platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>