You Make the Call: Over-And-Back? Traveling? Neither?

[rollo]

I'm not going over dramatize this YMtC...just going to describe it and let you all screw up the call!

A blue player is in the back court bringing the ball up against a trapping press. To beat the press over midcourt, the ball handler sprints to their left and stumbles shy of midcourt, losing control of the ball.

As the defense backs off and still in the back court, the player dives, regains control of the ball and slides, coming to a stop with their hips, head and ball in the frontcourt and their butt and feet in the backcourt.

As the defense now swarms around the ball handler, he picks up his feet and quickly passes the ball to a teammate in the backcourt who leads a 4-on-2 fast break and passes for an easy layup. (For the record, the feet went from on-the-floor to in-the-air but the player's butt stayed stationary)

But hold on a minute...it all happened so fast that the refs whistle wasn't heard and after a few emphatic tweets, play comes to a hault!

You're the Royal ref...what's your call???

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo I'm not going over dramatize this YMtC...just going to describe it and let you all screw up the call! A blue player is in the back court bringing the ball up against a trapping press. To beat the press over midcourt, the ball handler sprints to their left and stumbles shy of midcourt, losing control of the ball. As the defense backs off and still in the back court, the player dives, regains control of the ball and slides, coming to a stop with their hips, head and ball in the frontcourt and their butt and feet in the backcourt. As the defense now swarms around the ball handler, he picks up his feet and quickly passes the ball to a teammate in the backcourt who leads a 4-on-2 fast break and passes for an easy layup. (For the record, the feet went from on-the-floor to in-the-air but the player's butt stayed stationary) But hold on a minute...it all happened so fast that the refs whistle wasn't heard and after a few emphatic tweets, play comes to a hault! You're the Royal ref...what's your call???

My understanding is its the ball that is the issue, if ball crosses mid court it would be over back to pass it back over midcourt.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer My understanding is its the ball that is the issue, if ball crosses mid court it would be over back to pass it back over midcourt.

Which raises the question as to whether the ball actually - by rule - is in the frontcourt.

Based on the description, it never touched the floor...so is it in the frontcourt or still in the backcourt? Does holding the ball over the midcourt line officially put the ball in the frontcourt?

You tell me!

But you only have a split second to make the call...c'mon Priders! There is no replay...there is no rulebook review...just as you expect immediate perfection on the court, I expect the same here...so MAKE THE CALL!!!

[SLUFLYER]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer My understanding is its the ball that is the issue, if ball crosses mid court it would be over back to pass it back over midcourt.

It's not just the ball, but the entirety of the player needs to across as well (both feet).

[rollo]

Is the ball in the frontcourt or not? That's an important point!

When inbounding the ball, if the player holds the ball behind the end/sideline, it's a dead ball...any contact by the defending team is an automatic 'T'.

When inbounding the ball, if the player holds the ball over the end/sideline, it's a live ball...and any contact by the defending team is legal.

So the act of holding the ball over the end/sideline determines whether it's live or not...where the player is standing has no bearing.

Now apply that to this O-a-B scenario. Is the ball in the frontcourt or not? It's over the midcourt line but hasn't touched the floor...but it's over the line! Is this an important distinction?

C'MON REF! MAKE THE CALL! UDPRIDE REFS SUCK....

[cj]

In order for it to be over and back three points must cross half court, both feet and the ball. This did not happen so I can't see it being an over and back call. Not sure if the rule changes if the player is not on his feet so I am going to assume not.
If you are on your swampy and pick up your feet I don't see this as a traveling as your swampy is the pivot. If you stand up from a sitting position then I believe this is traveling.
So, based on rollo's description I would be tempted to say it should have been an inadvertent whistle. I am sure I am wrong as I rarely get these correct.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by cj In order for it to be over and back three points must cross half court, both feet and the ball. This did not happen so I can't see it being an over and back call. Not sure if the rule changes if the player is not on his feet so I am going to assume not. If you are on your swampy and pick up your feet I don't see this as a traveling as your swampy is the pivot. If you stand up from a sitting position then I believe this is traveling. So, based on rollo's description I would be tempted to say it should have been an inadvertent whistle. I am sure I am wrong as I rarely get these correct.

3 points is the definition but it doesn't always equal both feet and the ball.

[UDGutter2]

If he dove, I am assuming his upper body was touching the floor, thereby establishing position.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by UDGutter2 If he dove, I am assuming his upper body was touching the floor, thereby establishing position.

Position isn't established until a sliding player comes to a stop.

At that point, you have 0.00001 seconds to decide what he/she is using to establish position...Upper body (if possible)? Feet? Butt? Shoulders? Elbows?

C'mon people...the fans are going nuts! Coaches are throwing chairs!! Dickie V has fallen asleep!!! and CBS is out of Dilly-Dilly commercials...time has run out so MAKE THE CALL!!!

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo As the defense backs off and still in the back court, the player dives, regains control of the ball and slides, ?

If your example happened at the high school level or lower, the minute the player slides, most refs incorrectly in most cases called traveling, with the help of most of the fans of the team on defense. The fans of the blue team all jump up and down and scream at the ref that their little angel was pushed down and that basketball is not a contact sport.

[Lowd&ProUD]

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan If your example happened at the high school level or lower, the minute the player slides, most refs incorrectly in most cases called traveling, with the help of most of the fans of the team on defense. The fans of the blue team all jump up and down and scream at the ref that their little angel was pushed down and that basketball is not a contact sport.

Sliding on the floor with the ball isn't traveling??? If that's true, then pretty much EVERY announcer should be made aware of that.

That wasn't a choice, but that would have been my call here based on the description.

Not over and back because ball and body were never both fully across line.

Really not sure if the rump on the floor equals two feet or not, but I'd lean towards yes, and say no call.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by Lowd&ProUD Sliding on the floor with the ball isn't traveling??? If that's true, then pretty much EVERY announcer should be made aware of that.

Despite what I too heard several different announcers say this season, as well as multiple fans sitting around me, no sliding with the ball is not traveling. Once you stop, if you roll over, try to get up, etc with the ball still in your possession, yes it is traveling. I am sure King Rollo will correct any details I may have wrong on my explanation

EDIT- What is frustrating is the number of officials (again- lower level, I sure hope no NCAA officials are this bad) as well as coaches, who do not know this rule or understand what I believe is quite simple to understand.

[88flyer]

If you are laying on your back with your head and shoulders on the ground and your feet in the air, your butt is also likely in the air. So... depending on the amount of junk in the trunk, this might need to go to the monitor to see if any part of the butt remained on the ground. Maybe he was laying on his stomach? We need more details!!

But of course, this entire line of thinking is most likely wrong, so I'm just typing this for the fun of joining the insanity.

[FlyingArrow]

From the description, it sounds like the player hasn't yet established himself in the front court. Picking up his feet isn't traveling until he puts them back down and he passes before he puts them back down. So no call.

[Gazoo]

(I always vote before I read the comments. Almost always to my detriment.)

My guess would have been that by establishing himself with pivot-butt-cheeks in the front court and the ball across the line in his possession, the ball is in the front court. Otherwise, you could pass it to someone in the front court and it's not officially in the FC until the guy dribbles?? Doesn't seem right.

Not traveling, but seems like over and back.

[TXFlyerFan]

Player has to be holding or dribbling entirely in the front court to establish front court possession. If position was established by butt and butt is in back court, it's not over and back. If butt didn't move and butt established position, then I don't see traveling either, regardless of leg movement.

[sheg]

No call. Sliding is not traveling. Butt remained stationary. Possession was never established in the front court.

[Avid Flyer]

Reason I went with over back was a game I attended a year ago to watch neighbors daughter play HS bball.

Her team was bringing ball down court and crossed mid court when opposing players jumped on her to trap her in the corner. She immediately throws the ball over her head to guard opposite side of court who had not yet crossed mid court. Other guard (neighbors daughter) jumps in air catching ball back court with momentum carrying her cross midcourt where her feet landed. Refs called over and back even though the other guard did not have feet in backcourt when caught ball. Refs claimed ball was established in front court then crossed back into backcourt even though the player was smart enough to not catch it inside backcourt.

There argument was ball broke the plane.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer Reason I went with over back was a game I attended a year ago to watch neighbors daughter play HS bball. Her team was bringing ball down court and crossed mid court when opposing players jumped on her to trap her in the corner. She immediately throws the ball over her head to guard opposite side of court who had not yet crossed mid court. Other guard (neighbors daughter) jumps in air catching ball back court with momentum carrying her cross midcourt where her feet landed. Refs called over and back even though the other guard did not have feet in backcourt when caught ball. Refs claimed ball was established in front court then crossed back into backcourt even though the player was smart enough to not catch it inside backcourt. There argument was ball broke the plane.

Unless your state plays by their own rules, the refs butchered that call.

[FlyingArrow]

Re: Avid Flyer's scenario

I would think that it's over and back because the player catching it was established to be in the backcourt (hadn't yet set foot in the frontcourt). Not because the ball broke the plane.

But that's without reading the rules.

[Avid Flyer]

Yeah its the show me state. Obviously her coach etc argued the call to no avail then promptly filed game under protest with the head refs etc. Game was close as several calls seemed to go against there team as there was 3 min left and opposing team was making a come back.

Fortunately her team won so nothing more I guess.

Glad I'm not a ref ump or whatever have to make split second decisions and no matter what someone will be unhappy.

[rollo]

FWIW, this situation occurred last Saturday in an AAU tournament. I was the trail official so it wasn't my call...and my partner is an OHSAA HOF ref, so I know it was right.

Or was it?!

[Avid Flyer]

Yesterday a video of UD women playing VCU in 2014 A10 quarterfinals showed up so I watched it. Midway Edwards for UD was bring ball down court and was immediately trapped as she crossed mid court. Edwards threw the ball over her head to a trailing guard opposite court. The guard was still backcourt. She jumped in air and slapped ball forward to another UD player in front court....refs made no call as play continued.

[MNFats]

Originally Posted by rollo FWIW, this situation occurred last Saturday in an AAU tournament. I was the trail official so it wasn't my call...and my partner is an OHSAA HOF ref, so I know it was right. Or was it?!

I've always hated the "it wasn't my call" stuff. I get it. I do. But it happened to me last week when one of our guys got fouled going to the basket. No call. Next stoppage I asked the ref why there wasn't a call. His response was, "I saw the foul, but I can't call it because it's his call (nodding towards the other ref).

If you see a foul, or an infraction of some kind, you should call it.

I know that's not how it works, but it drives me crazy.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by MNFats I've always hated the "it wasn't my call" stuff. I get it. I do. But it happened to me last week when one of our guys got fouled going to the basket. No call. Next stoppage I asked the ref why there wasn't a call. His response was, "I saw the foul, but I can't call it because it's his call (nodding towards the other ref). If you see a foul, or an infraction of some kind, you should call it. I know that's not how it works, but it drives me crazy.

'Ball watching' is a mortal sin in basketball officiating...so is throwing your partner under the bus. I'm not saying the ref you talked to was right or wrong, but I will say he's an idiot for saying what he did.

[Flyer2]

Originally Posted by MNFats I've always hated the "it wasn't my call" stuff. I get it. I do. But it happened to me last week when one of our guys got fouled going to the basket. No call. Next stoppage I asked the ref why there wasn't a call. His response was, "I saw the foul, but I can't call it because it's his call (nodding towards the other ref). If you see a foul, or an infraction of some kind, you should call it. I know that's not how it works, but it drives me crazy.

Well I guess someone should of told Ted Valentine about that ref etiquette because he called everything and screw the other referees. I hated to see him on the court.

He screwed up an over an back in Chicago when we were play DePaul or Loyola and followed that up with a similar situation against Ohio State. I believe there were some threats made and they stopped announcing who the referees were.
I couldn’t understand why the other referees put up with him and why we had to endure him and his ego.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo FWIW, this situation occurred last Saturday in an AAU tournament. I was the trail official so it wasn't my call...and my partner is an OHSAA HOF ref, so I know it was right. Or was it?!

Why was this not your call as the trail official? In the situation you described shouldn't your co worker be under or near the basket the offense is trying to break the press and score at?

[cj]

So what is the correct call??

[FlyingArrow]

Even after the explanation, I still say no call.

The rulebook does not address the given situation directly. It addresses traveling for players who are standing. And it says you cannot fall to the ground without maintaining a pivot foot. Rule 9-5.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/BR18.pdf

But the situation of gaining control of the ball while diving and on the ground is not in Rule 9-5. So the given situation is covered by the case book. The relevant case is A.R. 201-3.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...ds/BKBCB18.pdf

According to the case book, you're allowed to gain control while sliding. After that, you're not allowed to try to get up or allowed to roll over. The rulebook and case book does not define a pivot foot for a person who dives to the ground. The particular case doesn't mention a pivot foot at all, and the rulebook gives details about how to determine the pivot foot for a standing player, but not for a player diving to the ground. If there is no pivot foot, then as long as the player doesn't try to stand up and doesn't roll over (the two violations defined in case A.R. 201-3), they can't travel.

Rule 9-5.4 says:

Art. 4. A player who catches the ball while moving or ends a dribble may stop and establish a pivot foot as follows: a. When both feet are off the playing court and the player lands: 1. Simultaneously on both feet, either may be the pivot foot; 2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch shall be the pivot foot; 3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both, in which case neither foot can be the pivot foot.

Rule 9-5.4 seems to not apply to the diving player since a diving player doesn't land on any feet at all... so none of the 3 cases apply. However, if "landing" on feet simply refers to the first foot to touch the ground then it would apply. In that case, a pivot foot would be determined. But there's still no travel because you are allowed to lift the pivot foot as long as you pass before it is back on the ground (9-5.5a). It says nothing about the player having to be in the air or not allowed to be on his back - he just can't put the foot back down.

Rule 9-5.7 does not apply because it is about a player with an established pivot foot falling to the ground without maintaining the pivot foot. It is not about a player on the ground establishing a pivot foot.

But things may be different at the high school level.

[rollo]

I welcome you to NOT make a call at any level and try and get out of the gym unscathed.

[FlyingArrow]

Originally Posted by rollo I welcome you to NOT make a call at any level and try and get out of the gym unscathed.

*shrug*

I'm just trying to learn the rules. I'm not a ref. I'm open to other references, but I just don't see where this ruling comes from based on the NCAA rulebook and case book. What you say may in fact be the way these things would be called, but if so it looks like a "group think" sort of thing among the refs - as opposed to something actually in the rulebook. Or maybe there's another authoritative source beyond those two links I gave. Or maybe I missed a rule.

But what it comes down to is this:
* Regardless of whether the person laying on the ground with feet on the ground has a valid pivot foot, they are allowed to lift their feet as long as they pass before they put their feet down (9.5-5a and 9.5-6a). It seems that those rules are supposed to be about someone jumping in the air, but it doesn't say that. No exception about a person laying down is given either in the rulebook or the case book. (9.5-7 is about falling down, not about someone already on the ground when they gain possession.)

* For someone on the ground, the two things specifically excluded by the case book are trying to stand up and rolling over. The player did neither.

[rollo]

It can be easily argued that a player laying down, who lifts both their feet as they pass the ball, has rolled forward.

Regardless...learning what the Rule SAYS and what it MEANS is the difference between a ref and a good ref.

The 3-second call, for instance. The rule says you can't be in the lane for more than 3 seconds and you'll hear all sorts of a-hole coaches and CYO moms yell non-stop about the 4th grade girl with 1 foot inside the FT line for 5 seconds...only an idiot ref would call that. Why?

Because the Rule SAYS you can't be in the lane for more than 3-seconds but what it MEANS is that you can't have a player inside the lane GAINING AN ADVANTAGE for more than 3-seconds. So when you're considering a 3-seconds call on the 6'6" kid on the low block, you have to know where the ball is (baseline, FT line, midcourt)...what the offense is doing (playing keep-away, running the weave, attacking the basket)...what the player is doing (daydreaming or setting an inside pick or positioning for a rebound) and whether he's 'in the lane' or just has the heel of his left foot inside the lane.

As for your 'no-call' justification...based on how it's written and your perspective, you may be right, but I disagree. If no call had been made, the gym would have erupted. If a _avier player had done that at UD Arena and no call was made, 13,455 fans would have exploded and BG/Archie/Grant would get ejected for their reaction.

So when you're reading the Rules, don't memorize them. Apply them as they were REASONABLY intended to be used based on the current situation. I've been reffing since '92 and still learn something every weekend. The Rules are not black-and-white...most of them are 100% grey.

King Rollo the Justifier...OUT!!

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[FlyingArrow]

Originally Posted by rollo So when you're reading the Rules, don't memorize them. Apply them as they were REASONABLY intended to be used based on the current situation. I've been reffing since '92 and still learn something every weekend. The Rules are not black-and-white...most of them are 100% grey.

I see it as no call since the rules list all the violations and it looks like none of the violations apply. But there do seem to be some holes in the rules. For example these absurdities:

* Traveling only has to do with moving the feet. If someone has possession of the ball and is able to move on their knees while keeping their feet off the ground, by rule there's no traveling violation even if they shimmy the length of the court, but I can't imagine that working.

* A person with the ball could kick their feet and slide 10 feet without a traveling violation as long as they don't put their feet back down.

The rules don't seem to apply to those oddball situations, but I'm sure a call would be made. Likewise the rules don't apply to a person laying on the ground like this YMtC problem, but maybe a call should be made here, too. It's just not in rulebook apparently (at least the NCAA rulebook). In any case, there should be a rule or at least a case in the case book that specifies how to define a pivot foot and/or traveling for players who gain control of the ball while on the ground. "Can't get up" and "can't roll over" is a good start, but there's a lot left undefined there.