FT discrepancy and 3 calls I don't understand

Impressive that the guy would respond.

I think he will ultimately say it is judgment call on whether or not it was possession.

I wonder if Buddy had tipped/touched the ball then ran and secured it (not dribbling) if they would call double dribble (assuming he mid court line was not involved) had he then put it on the ground for a dribble.
 
I used to have a link to a forum where officials discussed complicated calls like this one but somewhere along the way, I lost it.

I do think it's interesting that based on calls in a couple of our subsequent games, we were proven right about what is and isn't allowed when a player is inbounding the ball. Ironic that the officials can get it right in Norman and Amers but get it so wrong in Lawrence. :facepalm

EDIT: Found the officials forum! https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/ They discuss this call and include a film clip in the thread titled "Backcourt Violation?"
 
Last edited:
MsProudSooner said:
I used to have a link to a forum where officials discussed complicated calls like this one but somewhere along the way, I lost it.

I do think it's interesting that based on calls in a couple of our subsequent games, we were proven right about what is and isn't allowed when a player is inbounding the ball. Ironic that the officials can get it right in Norman and Amers but get it so wrong in Lawrence. :facepalm

EDIT: Found the officials forum! https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/ They discuss this call and include a film clip in the thread titled "Backcourt Violation?"
Click to expand...

Wow. That was a good find. Sounds like violation but it is interesting that there is discussion on whether it was a batted ball or considered it a pass (control). Based on the rules posted here I thought it was going to come down to that. It makes sense after seeing some of the other rules posted. I was at first stuck on just one rule but it seems like it takes a combination of things.
 
Thanks for the link. I've seen that forum before but keep forgetting it exists.

There's another interesting thread there about the blocking foul on Woodard late in the WV game. General consensus is that it would have been a good call under the rule that they used for a couple of years, but under the current rules it should have been a charge.
 
WTSooner said:
I don't care about how the rule reads, but after watching the replay last night (albeit a grainy version), here is my conclusion:

Buddy left his feet from his frontcourt, and possessed the ball while in the air. By definition, he then has possession in the frontcourt, because that is where HE last had position. He isn't in the backcourt until he lands there. While in the air he came to possess the ball, thus putting the ball in the frontcourt, until he landed, which then put Buddy and the ball in the backcourt. That is over and back. Has been since I played in middle school.

The only question I have at this point, is did Buddy touch the ball before landing in the backcourt. The version I saw last night wasn't clean enough for me to say. If not, it was the wrong call, but I don't think that is what most are arguing in this thread.

That is the way that rule has been "called" for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...
still haven't seen a replay of the play. The links somebody posted were to watchespn which I can't access
 
hmmm. after watching that in slow motion, i'm going to say it was the correct call. only b/c cousins had control when through it off the isu player. But i think even that could be a judgement call. If isiah had not saved it (pretend the ball was just bouncing around) and buddy did what he did, I don't think it would have been a violation
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
hmmm. after watching that in slow motion, i'm going to say it was the correct call. only b/c cousins had control when through it off the isu player. But i think even that could be a judgement call. If isiah had not saved it (pretend the ball was just bouncing around) and buddy did what he did, I don't think it would have been a violation
Click to expand...

I think that is right and basically what they were saying on the ref forum.
 
FWIW I'm at a basketball tournament right now and have asked both sets of officials and they all 4 said it was a backcourt violation. I'm really interested to see what the guy from the NCAA says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Buddy basically took a dribble in the ISU side of the court while his feet were in the OU side of the court. If he had been able to grab the ball w/o dribbling it on the ISU side, would it have been a violation?
 
MsProudSooner said:
Buddy basically took a dribble in the ISU side of the court while his feet were in the OU side of the court. If he had been able to grab the ball w/o dribbling it on the ISU side, would it have been a violation?
Click to expand...
If I understand the refs correctly, the issue isn't that he dribbled in the ISU side. It's that his dribble established possession while he (based on his feet) was still on the OU side, after which he crossed the line. If he had been able to stop his momentum, he could have stayed on his side of the line and the dribble would not have been a violation.
 
campbest said:
Was this play in the second half? I would have to see the play again really break-it down, but from my recollection, the key is Cousins was the last to possess the ball (he saved it and threw it back in-bounds...even though it was very brief, this establishes frontcourt possession). It hit an Iowa State player, but Buddy still has to get both feet out of the backcourt and one foot in the frontcourt before touching the ball, he has backcourt status until that happens. A similar situation is if a player is in the front-court, passes to a teammate in the backcourt who jumps, catches it in the air and lands in the frontcourt.

If it was the first half, just reverse the scenario.
Click to expand...

...from page 1 :)
 
Last edited:
Cousins grabbing the ball in the backcourt and throwing it off an ISU player's leg in no way established frontcourt possession. The ball was loose in the backcourt when Buddy reached across and slapped it. He then retreated to the backcourt and possessed the ball. The ball was never in the frontcourt, therefore a backcourt can't be called.
 
Last edited:
SoonerBounce13 said:
still haven't seen a replay of the play. The links somebody posted were to watchespn which I can't access
Click to expand...

Go to MrsProudSooner's link and read the thread. There is a video. First it will show it in regular time. Stay with the video (it will show another play) and then go back to the call and show it in slow motion.
 
opsooner said:
Both sides raise good points. I am not sure now. It probably depends on definitions of control, passing vs dribbling, loose balls, etc. I suspect there is a ref forum somewhere. It would be interesting to submit it and see what they say. I'm not sure that would work though because there would probably be disagreement on what was submitted. :)
Click to expand...

https://www.athletic-officials.com/basketball/advanced-officiating/rule-9-9-backcourt-violation/

Here is the rule explained by a supervisor of officials. If I'm reading him correctly then it wasn't a violation.

From the article: "The above shows a special emphasis regarding the ball. 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. It really can get complicated here and I have been presented with some extremely convoluted plays regarding this rule but for the most part, you should concentrate on the “status” of the ball. Was the ball in “player and team” control in the frontcourt, did the ball attain backcourt status, and was the team in “player and team” control the first to touch “the ball?”

Also from the article: "The final point to remember is the part of this rule stating the ball must be “secured.” This especially applies when the defense is pressing and is able to steal the ball in the backcourt of the offense near the division line. A defender may be in the process of making a steal of a pass near the division line and then, because of momentum, cross the division line. The key to remember here is when did the defender actually “secure” control of the ball. Most times in these situations, the defender is still gathering the ball, has tipped the ball into the air, or tapped it to the floor. Even if it looks like the defender has “directed” the ball to the floor, the official can rule he/she was still in the process of gaining control and had not yet “secured” control of the ball. Until it has been “secured,” control has not changed. Until the ball has been secured and control established in this situation, a backcourt violation cannot be called."

And this from the article was also interesting: "In general though, don’t be quick to determine a backcourt violation has occurred. If there is doubt, there probably was not a violation."
 
steverocks35 said:
Cousins grabbing the ball in the backcourt and throwing it off an ISU player's leg in no way established frontcourt possession. The ball was loose in the backcourt when Buddy reached across and slapped it. He then retreated to the backcourt and possessed the ball. The ball was never in the frontcourt, therefore a backcourt can't be called.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Time to admit that and move on.
 
So you're arguing that Cousins grabbing the ball in the BACKCOURT and throwing it off an ISU player's leg in the BACKCOURT causing a loose ball, in the BACKCOURT, somehow establishes the ball in the FRONTCOURT? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
MsProudSooner said:
Buddy basically took a dribble in the ISU side of the court while his feet were in the OU side of the court. If he had been able to grab the ball w/o dribbling it on the ISU side, would it have been a violation?
Click to expand...

I think that is part of the key to this. I think they are saying that it would not have been backcourt then because his feet were in the frontcourt and he was able to grab the ball out of the air (even tough it was on the other side of the line. That is the rule on where the play is located.

If Cousins does not control the ball then OU never had possession and I think it is not considered backcourt because the ball was never in the frontcourt. That is the rule on when on a ball is in the frontcourt when you are in control of it (both player and ball need to be in the frontcourt). This is where I was wrong at first because I was not really thinking about the control part.

However, since they are saying Cousins had control it was the position of Hield that got him in trouble. It would be like Cousins throwing a pass to Buddy at that point. Buddy's feet are in the frontcourt (so he is in the frontcourt) but he catches the ball and drops it in the backcourt (the ball is now in the backcourt after entering the frontcourt). That is a violation.

It is confusing but if I am interpreting it correctly it does make sense to me now. I have never really cared one way or the other about the call but this has been an interesting thread for me.
 
Except when Buddy touched the ball it was a loose ball that had caromed off an ISU player's leg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
My Thoughts from the OKC Regional (On and Off the Court)
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
tycat947
T
OUHoops
OU-SFA Stats/Quotes/Notes/Photos
Replies
11
Views
3K
sdcloud9
S
Back
Top