NCAA Vid Request - Sat 3/17 - Kent. vs Buff - BC violation?

Camron Rust

bucky wrote
See OP.

He was not dribbling as it was deflected by the defender. During that moment, while the ball was not in control, the offensive player crossed the division line with both feet. He then reached back and touched the ball, giving the ball FC status. Correct?

He was dribbling from the backcourt to the frontcourt. A deflection by a defender does not necessarily end the dribble. He merely continued the dribble after the deflection.

bucky

Camron Rust wrote
He was dribbling from the backcourt to the frontcourt. A deflection by a defender does not necessarily end the dribble. He merely continued the dribble after the deflection.

I had him no longer in control because of the deflection. We will have to agree to disagree.

Camron Rust

bucky wrote
I had him no longer in control because of the deflection. We will have to agree to disagree.

Control is a matter of judgement and I could see either opinion. If there is any doubt as to control, I'd default to not calling a violation.

bob jenkins

bucky wrote
Player whose team was in control of ball had 2 feet in front court and touched the ball while being there, giving ball FC status also. Player then went into BC and was the first to touch the ball. Based on that, were the conditions met for a BC violation? lol If not, correct me as I want to get it correct.

Where was the defender who deflected the ball? NCAAM rules have some component about "the offense can be the last to touch in the FC, if the ball is deflected by the defense" type rule (I am not up on the specifics).

Raymond

bucky wrote
I had him no longer in control because of the deflection. We will have to agree to disagree.

If the defense deflects the ball, the offense can touch the ball anywhere and still regain player control in the back court. That's the rule.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

bucky

If I recall, defender's status was the offensive team's BC. Really need the video. It was really close and difficult to officiate on a technical level. Bang bang right at the division line.

Camron Rust

bucky wrote
If I recall, defender's status was the offensive team's BC. Really need the video. It was really close and difficult to officiate on a technical level. Bang bang right at the division line.

I don't think that would matter.

bucky

Camron Rust wrote
I don't think that would matter.

I feel it would b/c the ball would then have BC status and Raymond's point would be irrelevant.

Camron Rust

bucky wrote
I feel it would b/c the ball would then have BC status and Raymond's point would be irrelevant.

I believe the rule allows the offense to regain control without jeopardy of a BC violation. A mere touch by the offense wouldn't necessarily do that.

ByRule

Raymond wrote
If the defense deflects the ball, the offense can touch the ball anywhere and still regain player control in the back court. That's the rule.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Raymond is correct.
NCAA M and NFHS are different- NCAA M changed rule on a deflected ball by the defense while the ball has front court status anyone can retrieve if the ball goes in the backcourt. Regardless of last to touch first to touch.

bob jenkins

ByRule wrote
Raymond is correct.
NCAA M and NFHS are different- NCAA M changed rule on a deflected ball by the defense while the ball has front court status anyone can retrieve if the ball goes in the backcourt. Regardless of last to touch first to touch.

In the OP (and based on subsequent posts) the ball *may not* have been in the FC when it was deflected -- so, based on this (and my subsequent reading of the rule), it may still have been a BC violation (depending, perhaps, on the loss of control / dribble issue).

In any event, if it takes all this to decide, then the official was correct -- no matter what the zapruder film shows. 😉

bucky

ByRule wrote
Raymond is correct.
NCAA M and NFHS are different- NCAA M changed rule on a deflected ball by the defense while the ball has front court status anyone can retrieve if the ball goes in the backcourt. Regardless of last to touch first to touch.

As Bob said, ball was deflected while defender in BC and ball in BC. Rule change irrelevant as ball never had FC status until offensive player touched it. Really need that video.

Raymond

Bumping to see if Jeff can find the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

JRutledge

Peace

bucky

Perfect, can't wait to hear from everybody. Very close but I am going with BC violation. Offensive player, not dribbling, has 2 feet in his FC, reaches and touches ball (giving ball FC status), and ball lands in BC where same player is first to touch it.

Raymond

JRutledge wrote

Peace

He never dribbled in the front Court.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

bucky

Raymond wrote
He never dribbled in the front Court.

What is your point? There is no requirement of dribbling in the FC for a BC violation.

Raymond

bucky wrote
What is your point? There is no requirement of dribbling in the FC for a BC violation.

On this play there is.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

JRutledge

bucky wrote
What is your point? There is no requirement of dribbling in the FC for a BC violation.

If you have an interrupted dribble and you never established the ball in the FC, it can matter in this situation.

Now the question does him not dribbling in the FC matter in this specific play. I think there is a case to be made that this could be a violation if you feel the play was with a FC player making the ball touch the BC. But I think that is a stretch. The defender tipped the ball away which allows for no longer have a cheap violation.

Peace

bucky

JRutledge wrote
If you have an interrupted dribble and you never established the ball in the FC, it can matter in this situation.

Now the question does him not dribbling in the FC matter in this specific play. I think there is a case to be made that this could be a violation if you feel the play was with a FC player making the ball touch the BC. But I think that is a stretch. The defender tipped the ball away which allows for no longer have a cheap violation.

Peace

I understand if ball was never established in the FC but in the play, the ball was established in the FC.