Alabama @ Arkansas 1/22/15 Throw-In Into Backcourt (Video)

[crosscountry55]

ESPN2. 8.5s remaining first half, Alabama throw-in.

Backcourt violation? Discuss.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

ESPN2. 8.5s remaining first half, Alabama throw-in.

Backcourt violation? Discuss.

I was expecting a close call. Absolutely no way this is a violation.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

I was expecting a close call. Absolutely no way this is a violation.

Probably impossible to judge in real time, especially for the T when the inbounds pass is coming all the way from the endline and you're backtracking to get a look. So good no call in that context.

However, I looked at it several times on my DVR in 1/6 speed, and I believe the ball comes to rest in the receivers hand (control) while one foot is in the frontcourt and the other is not touching. The other foot then touches in the backcourt. So I believe technically this should have been a backcourt violation.

If only college basketball had a challenge flag.

[APG]

[junruh07]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Probably impossible to judge in real time, especially for the T when the inbounds pass is coming all the way from the endline and you're backtracking to get a look. So good no call in that context.

However, I looked at it several times on my DVR in 1/6 speed, and I believe the ball comes to rest in the receivers hand (control) while one foot is in the frontcourt and the other is not touching. The other foot then touches in the backcourt. So I believe technically this should have been a backcourt violation.

If only college basketball had a challenge flag.

Unless I am mistaken, which is very possible, on a throw in or if the defense interceps a pass, they are allowed to land normally and it makes no difference if the first foot was down in the front court or the back court.

[Raymond]

Not even close to a violation.

[JRutledge]

It is not a violation that I can tell. I see the player in the backcourt touching the ball first.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by junruh07

Unless I am mistaken, which is very possible, on a throw in or if the defense interceps a pass, they are allowed to land normally and it makes no difference if the first foot was down in the front court or the back court.

True, if they catch the ball while they are in the air. But, if they catch the ball with one foot on the ground in the FC, and then put the second foot down in the BC, that's a violation. (and I don't have an opinion on which, if either, of these happened in the play)

[mutantducky]

well if that is the case it looks like a violation to me. But very close and I don't fault the ref for not calling it as you can't really see by the video.

edit-
On pausing the video, it is difficult to determine when there is control as it is a one-handed catch. It may be that there was one foot in the FC and another in the BC at the same time.

Ruling on the field stands...

[JeffM]

Reference: BillyMac's Misunderstood rules

The player is allowed to make a normal landing. So even if his first foot landed in the front court and the second foot landed in the back court, it would not have been a backcourt violation.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JeffM

Reference: BillyMac's Misunderstood rules

The player is allowed to make a normal landing. So even if his first foot landed in the front court and the second foot landed in the back court, it would not have been a backcourt violation.

Yes, but as bob jenkins points out, this applies to an airborne player making a landing. In the video, the player is not airborne when he gains control.

.....EDIT: Actually, maybe he was airborne. Took another look. Didn't notice that before.....END EDIT.

Still, even I have to admit I'd pass on this if I witnessed it in real time. Just too bang-bang for any level of certainty.

However, I wanted to stir discussion and in that, I have succeeded.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Yes, but as bob jenkins points out, this applies to an airborne player making a landing. In the video, the player is not airborne when he gains control.

.....EDIT: Actually, maybe he was airborne. Took another look. Didn't notice that before.....END EDIT.

Still, even I have to admit I'd pass on this if I witnessed it in real time. Just too bang-bang for any level of certainty.

However, I wanted to stir discussion and in that, I have succeeded.

If in doubt, then there is no call to make.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by camron rust

if in doubt, then there is no call to make.

+1

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If in doubt, then there is no call to make.

This. The other option..."I think..." has no place in officiating.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If in doubt, then there is no call to make.

Absolutely agree. Like I said, in real time, I'm sure I've gotta whole lotta nothing here.