FT discrepancy and 3 calls I don't understand

[steverocks35]

So the only possible way that is a backcourt violation is if Buddy's reach back and touching the ball constitutes control under Article 3.

The way I read it, and the way it's explained in the article I posted, even if he has control, as long as the BALL is still in the backcourt, it's not a backcourt.

 

[steverocks35]

From the article I posted earlier, the location of the ball is important:

"This is because the rule should be considered a “ball” centric rule. While a player must touch the ball illegally, the rule has as its emphasis on the status of the ball."

 

[DenverSooner]

The way I read it, and the way it's explained in the article I posted, even if he has control, as long as the BALL is still in the backcourt, it's not a backcourt.

that is right because if he has possession he is the guy taking the ball into the front court and then the three point rule applies, I think.

 

[bearcreekfan]

So the only possible way that is a backcourt violation is if Buddy's reach back and touching the ball constitutes control under Article 3.

However, you also have to take campbest's comment about possession into account because Buddy reaching back and touching it alone doesn't cause the violation, e.g. what if an ISU player had tipped it back there and Buddy was going after it from the frontcourt or what if an ISU player was the last to possess it on that side of midcourt. The ball had to have been possessed in the backcourt by OU and at that point in time have backcourt status.

Related to that, I thought the 3rd Q&A on this page seemed to explain it, assuming the ref thought Cousin's possessed it. While Buddy didn't jump into the backcourt, he clearly had frontcourt status when he first touched the ball.

So, my view is that it had to have been the combination of Cousin's possessing it first and then Buddy gaining control while in the frontcourt...neither of which I think happened.

 

[steverocks35]

However, you also have to take campbest's comment about possession into account because Buddy reaching back and touching it alone doesn't cause the violation, e.g. what if an ISU player had tipped it back there and Buddy was going after it from the frontcourt or what if an ISU player was the last to possess it on that side of midcourt. The ball had to have been possessed in the backcourt by OU and at that point in time have backcourt status.

Related to that, I thought the 3rd Q&A on this page seemed to explain it, assuming the ref thought Cousin's possessed it. While Buddy didn't jump into the backcourt, he clearly had frontcourt status when he first touched the ball.

So, my view is that it had to have been the combination of Cousins possessing it first and then Buddy gaining control while in the frontcourt...neither of which I think happened.

The ball caromed off an ISU player's leg and was loose. Cousin's possessing it really doesn't matter.

 

[bearcreekfan]

The ball caromed off an ISU player's leg and was loose. Cousin's possessing it really doesn't matter.

My point was that it has to matter in order for the ref to call it the way he did. Buddy touching the ball in the backcourt while standing in the frontcourt can't be the only thing that constitutes backcourt for that play. Your point about the carom may be another reason why it shouldn't have been called.

 

[perryj74]

Seriously no one has the video of this to share?

 

[perryj74]

I just rewatched it on ESPN's website.

Cousins chases down the missed 3 by Niang and throws the ball off of an Iowa State player's leg around midcourt. It caroms forward towards the OU front court where Buddy is with both feet on the ground and he dribbles the loose ball in the backcourt and then goes over with his feet as well.

I think they got the call right after rewatching. If Buddy would have had either foot in the backcourt then it's a legal play.

 

[Section31]

I just rewatched it on ESPN's website.

Cousins chases down the missed 3 by Niang and throws the ball off of an Iowa State player's leg around midcourt. It caroms forward towards the OU front court where Buddy is with both feet on the ground and he dribbles the loose ball in the backcourt and then goes over with his feet as well.

I think they got the call right after rewatching. If Buddy would have had either foot in the backcourt then it's a legal play.

A backcourt violation has to meet certain criteria...player must have both feet AND the ball in the front court to be considered over and back...the ball never bounced in the front court as I recall.

 

[Section31]

BTW, it DOES seem as OU has gotten some odd outcomes on some rules interpretations this year...

 

[perryj74]

A backcourt violation has to meet certain criteria...player must have both feet AND the ball in the front court to be considered over and back...the ball never bounced in the front court as I recall.

Not entirely true. The ball doesn't have to touch the front court or even cross the line in the air to have a backcourt violation. Player in the backcourt passes the ball ahead while teammate catches it with his feet in the front court but the ball never crossing the line can't then go into the backcourt. That's a violation.

The debate here is whether Buddy possessed the ball while in the frontcourt. You don't actually have to catch the ball to possess it. I think we can all agree a player dribbling is thought to be in possession of the ball. In this case Buddy was standing in the frontcourt and dribbled it in the backcourt.

My ONLY question about the officials not getting this call correct, even though at the time watching it live I thought they had missed it, was if the ball touching an Iowa State player as Cousins threw it off his leg changes things. I haven't read anything to suggest it would.

 

[WTSooner]

A backcourt violation has to meet certain criteria...player must have both feet AND the ball in the front court to be considered over and back...

That is not true.

 

[WTSooner]

Somebody post a video. Or a link to the video.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

That is not true.

multiple people have posted the rules and why it wasn't an over and back.

All you have said is "that is not true" without anything to back up your stance

 

[WTSooner]

I'm not the only one saying it was back court too.

Be easier to explain if I can find the video to post.

 

[hoopsaustin]

The way I read it, and the way it's explained in the article I posted, even if he has control, as long as the BALL is still in the backcourt, it's not a backcourt.

This. Anything different than this is wrong.

Id bet above 75% of officials dont know the correct backcourt rules

 

[Section31]

That is not true.

It is true if you understand what I'm saying. Obviously, if he catches and possesses it in the front court it would be a violation. Point is he never did thus the implication that all three points must cross half court

 

[WTSooner]

Id bet above 75% of officials dont know the correct backcourt rules

Yet the posters on this board all know them? That's silly.

 

[perryj74]

It is true if you understand what I'm saying. Obviously, if he catches and possesses it in the front court it would be a violation. Point is he never did thus the implication that all three points must cross half court

According to the official he does possess it with the dribble and I'm inclined to agree with him. You don't have to catch a ball to possess it.

 

[chuckb]

The ball, if it's controlled by a team, has the status (backcourt or frontcourt) of the last person to touch it. That was Hield and, if I remember the play correctly, he had frontcourt status. He had established himself in the frontcourt. Then he touched the ball before re-establishing himself in the backcourt. If this was a loose ball, it's irrelevant and can't be a backcourt violation. The issue, then, is "was OU in control of the ball?" I just don't remember the play well enough to say but if the refs determined that Hield's touch was a controlled dribble, it's a backcourt violation. If Cousins controlled the ball prior to Hield's touch, it's a backcourt violation. If neither of those is true, it's not.