FT discrepancy and 3 calls I don't understand

[chuckb]

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.

Cousins grabbing the ball established that the ball was controlled by us. He threw the ball, Buddy was in the front court, and he came into the back court and touched the ball while having front court status. The video, the explanations, the delineation of the rule all point to this being a correct call by the ref.

It doesn't matter that the ball never crossed the vertical plane of the midcourt line. That's irrelevant. Hield was a front court player and touched the ball and then dribbled it in the back court. It's a violation.

In your other post, you reference the question, "was the ball in “player and team” control in the frontcourt?" It was. Team control was established by Cousins and reinforced by Hield's touch. Hield was a front court player at the time of his touch. Then, he touched it in the back court. There it is.

 

[steverocks35]

But the ball had caromed off an ISU player's leg and was a loose ball when Buddy touched it. In other words, it was not in player or team control

 

[inoref]

ISU shot 10 more FTs than OU. Hmmm, Hilton Magic I guess

1. How was that an over-and-back on OU late in first half when Cousins threw ball of Morris' leg? Ball was never across half court. Unless I don't understand the all three points across the line rule

2. Illegal screen on Lattin was a joke

3. McKay grabbed Buddy's arm on last drive to basket. No call

Basketball officiating is hard. But consistency was lacking tonight. Not the cause of the loss, but frustrating down the stretch.

OU shot 10 more than WVU..no magic other team just fouled more often

 

[opsooner]

But the ball had caromed off an ISU player's leg and was a loose ball when Buddy touched it. In other words, it was not in player or team control

I was kind of thinking this way too but the fact that it hit his leg does not mean he controlled it. Let's say that you are bringing the ball up the court and you throw a pass to your guy who is right over the dividing line but is completely in the front court. Let's say that a defender deflects the pass but your guy still touches it and then drops it in the backcourt. I think most of us would agree that is still a backcourt violation and I think that is basically what happened here.

If the ISU guy had intentionally kicked the ball that is a different matter or if the ISU guy had controlled it and then dropped it at the point where Buddy touched it that is a different matter.

 

[chuckb]

But the ball had caromed off an ISU player's leg and was a loose ball when Buddy touched it. In other words, it was not in player or team control

That is not how control works.

Imagine this...we're on offense and Cousins throws a pass to Hield but the pass is tipped by a Cyclone defender. Hield receives the ball anyway. Does the shot clock reset? Was ISU ever in possession? The answer to both, of course, is no. OU had possession the whole time despite the tipped ball.

So what if Cousin is trapped on the sideline and throws the ball off an ISU defender out of bounds. Does the shot clock reset? Of course not. Why? Because possession never changed.

The same is true here. We were in possession of the ball threw it off the ISU defender and Hield, having front court status, touched the ball in the back court when he dribbled it in the back court.

The call was correct.

 

[steverocks35]

It was a loose ball that caromed off the ISU player and was bouncing on the floor, not a direct pass. Just because possession didn't change doesn't mean the ball was being controlled. It's a very tough call, but the way I read the rules, as explained in my link above, I don't think it is a violation.

 

[opsooner]

It was a loose ball that caromed off the ISU player and was bouncing on the floor, not a direct pass. It's a very tough call, but the way I read the rules, as explained in my link above, I don't think it is a violation.

I think what you are saying is you don't believe that Cousins controlled it. If he did not then I don't think there should have been a violation. After looking at the replay I think we did grab it long enough to be considered control.

As always I may be wrong!!!!!

 

[chuckb]

It was a loose ball that caromed off the ISU player and was bouncing on the floor, not a direct pass. Just because possession didn't change doesn't mean the ball was being controlled. It's a very tough call, but the way I read the rules, as explained in my link above, I don't think it is a violation.

That's not true but even if it was, it doesn't matter. Hield was a front court player who controlled the ball and dribbled it in the back court. Back court violation.

 

[steverocks35]

I'm saying that Cousins did possess the ball but after it caroms off the ISU player's leg it wasn't controlled by anyone, it was a loose ball. But hell, I could be wrong, we probably won't see a play like that again for the rest of our lives. Fun discussion though.

 

[opsooner]

...from page 1

Doh. I would have been enlightened earlier if I had seen that.

 

[SoonerJK12]

In my opinion ,It wasn't a violation. The ball has to cross half-court before an over and back can be called. The ball never made it into the front court-- doesn't matter that Buddy was standing on the other side.

Rule 9 section 13 article 4 states that the ball has to come from the front court. The ball was never in the front court. Only Buddy was in the front court.

Thought experiment:
So if I dribble the ball up the floor and I cross the half court line, but I still dribble the ball in the back court, I would automatically get called for and over and back? No.

 

[DenverSooner]

The entire rule comes down to whether OU had control of the ball before Hield touched it. If you say yes, then I agree it was a violation. However, if you say a player diving out of bounds and tossing the ball at another player is control, I don't get that.

To be in control a player must hold the ball or be dribbling the ball. A team remains in control until another team takes control or the team takes a shot. (Rule 4 definition of control.) ISU was in control until Niang shot. Then nobody is in control until either Cousins dives for the ball and directs it back into play or Hield dribbles the ball. Touching the ball is not a means of obtaining control. It is only established by holding or dribbling.

So Hield either did not have control or he was dribbling and the three points rule applies.

 

[WTSooner]

The ball has to cross half-court before an over and back can be called.

That is not true. Seriously. Not true.

 

[DenverSooner]

That is not true. Seriously. Not true.

It sort of is. The ball must go from the front court to the back court. But the ball can be deemed to be in the front court even though it never crossed the mid court line.

What I copied and pasted (several pages back) is the exact rule.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Thought experiment:
So if I dribble the ball up the floor and I cross the half court line, but I still dribble the ball in the back court, I would automatically get called for and over and back? No.

You would if you stepped back into the backcourt after crossing into the frontcourt. Even if the ball always stayed in the backcourt.....i think

 

[WTSooner]

It sort of is. The ball must go from the front court to the back court. But the ball can be deemed to be in the front court even though it never crossed the mid court line.

What I copied and pasted (several pages back) is the exact rule.

The ball itself doesn't have to cross half-court, just "possession" of it.

 

[campbest]

Thought experiment:
So if I dribble the ball up the floor and I cross the half court line, but I still dribble the ball in the back court, I would automatically get called for and over and back? No.

Correct, no violation, but that person has player control as a ball handler. Then the three points rule applies. Buddy never had player control, even though OU had team control.

 

[perryj74]

I'm still waiting for the e-mail response from the NCAA to share with everyone but I spent all day at a basketball tournament and asked every group of officials and several of the coaches about the play. They all said it was a violation. The ones that didn't immediately say it was a violation all asked where Buddy was when he touched it. As soon as they knew he was in the frontcourt the immediate answer was violation.

The key to this, as was explained to me by one of the officials who is an OU fan, was the controlled tip/throw of Cousins. Until that point in time because the loose ball was from a shot attempt the ball had no status, just like on the opening tip or a throw-in. That changed when Cousins saves it back in bounds and it didn't matter if it was a tip or throw. The ball going off the leg of the Iowa State player has no impact here. I was told to imagine this had all happened in OU's frontcourt in regards to the ball going off the Iowa State players leg. Had a pass from Cousins to Buddy gone off the leg of an Iowa State player in the frontcourt Buddy would have been able to go into the backcourt to retrieve the ball but he would have to establish himself in the backcourt first. The fact that Buddy is in the froncourt, whether his feet are on the ground or in the air, when he touches the ball is what makes it a violation once he dribbles the ball in the backcourt. The ball going into the backcourt off the touch by Buddy wasn't the violation it was him, or any other OU player, being the first to touch it after Buddy's initial touch. The one thing that just came to mind that I didn't ask was what if after Buddy's touch when the ball bounced in the backcourt if Buddy would have been able to grab it while still in the frontcourt to avoid the violation.

 

[DenverSooner]

Whether Cousins controlled the ball is the entire issue. You may only have control by holding the ball or dribbling the ball. He most certainly didn't dribble the ball. Holding the ball is not defined. I don't really see him hold the ball. To me holding the ball means for some period of time beyond an instant. I don't know if it is a half second, a full second or a longer period but I would say two seconds is certainly holding the ball. Before that it would seem to be a judgment call.

One factor I would consider is whether the player had the option of maintaining a hold on the ball and keeping possession. Cousins most certainly did not have that option. He dove and would have carried the ball out of bounds if he held it. Therefore, I would say he did not hold the ball.

 

[perryj74]

And here we go! Although it doesn't get us any closer to an answer it certainly helps us understand why this is such a difficult and divisive call.

"Perry,

This is a difficult play to officiate because a lot depends on the nature of the last touch/dribble by B-2.

I’ll take you through the play as best I can.

When the shot is taken by A-1, there is no longer any team control.(Rule 4-9.4.c) When B-1 catches the ball and “throws” it off the leg of A-2, the throw entails control by B-1 and Team B. This Team B control continues during the pass from B-1 which goes off the leg of A-2. When B-2, who is in his front court with two feet on the floor, touches and dribbles the ball which has never crossed over the division line, the key to the play arises. If B-2 begins an immediate dribble, then 9-12.3.c applies and there is no backcourt violation. On the other hand, if B-2 touches the ball and then starts a dribble, it would seem to me that 9-12.3.a applies and the result is a backcourt violation since both the player and the ball had been in the front court.

Tough play, but I hope this helps."