The over and back call
- Thread starter Catfanlou_rivals54997
- Start date
The rule clarification you linked to says "when it has been deflected by the defense into the backcourt"....that was Maxey. Whether it was deflected previously before the backcourt deflection happened is irrelevant. Possession as you define it is also irrelevant. There was no player control (or possession in your vernacular), but there was TEAM CONTROL by UK during the loose ball scrum, which means the OAB rule was applicable.
Look. It simply comes down to this. If you think UK had reestablished possession of the ball and it wasn’t deflected by TT then it was a good call.
If you think Hagans lost possession and it was deflected by both players before going into backcourt then it is UK’s ball.
If you think because UK touched it last it makes it over and back no matter what then you obviously didn’t read the NCAA rule posted in this thread or you can’t read. The NCAA can’t be any clearer.
If you think Hagans lost possession and it was deflected by both players before going into backcourt then it is UK’s ball.
If you think because UK touched it last it makes it over and back no matter what then you obviously didn’t read the NCAA rule posted in this thread or you can’t read. The NCAA can’t be any clearer.
If one of our players had passed it to Nick, it would have been an over and back violation because Nick had not yet put a foot down on the offensive side of the court. He was still in the air, and he had touched the back court last. However, it was a loose ball, where no one had established control, and it was not a violation, regardless of which UK player touched it, or where. It was just a really bad call, at a crucial time. These type calls are the ones that make you wonder if the refs are incompetent, or do they truly have an agenda.
I don’t think you did. Because you quote a HS rule and say is it same as NCAA rule when it clearly isn’t. Have it at hoss. Believe as you may. Cats won so that’s all that matters.
Once again, another call that most everyone knew was BLOWN straight away by the refs, and goes for the HOME TEAM in a tight situation.
This is why CBB has needed proper accountability for officiating for so long. CBB officiating is broken worse than the tax code. We've been harping on it for over 15, 20, 25 years, it's ridiculous.
But yet, once again, another obstacle UK and BBN overcomes on the road in a very tough environment and we play 5 vs. 8 and STILL WIN!
Screw 'em, it's the same as always....
Beat them AND the refs.
Go Big Blue!
This is why CBB has needed proper accountability for officiating for so long. CBB officiating is broken worse than the tax code. We've been harping on it for over 15, 20, 25 years, it's ridiculous.
But yet, once again, another obstacle UK and BBN overcomes on the road in a very tough environment and we play 5 vs. 8 and STILL WIN!
Screw 'em, it's the same as always....
Beat them AND the refs.
Go Big Blue!
What the other guy quoted was a small clarification of the NCAA rule. Not the entire rule which I am quite certain is exactly the same as HS. You can believe your incorrect assumptions about posesssion, etc as you may. Frankly, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I have been an official for years. I believe the call was blown. Also I am not absolutely certain that the ball itself ever crossed (recrossed) the mid-court line. Couldn't get a good look. He went up in the air and tapped it specifically to avoid being in touch with the floor. A ball out of bounds, is NOT out of bounds unless or until it touches someone or something who/that is. The fact that the shot clock never started indicates that neither team had established possession. You cannot have it both ways.
Rule 4:35 Article 3
The location of an airborne player with reference to Inbound/out of bounds, front court/backcourt, and 3 point line, is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor. So, when Nick jumped from the backcourt, he has backcourt status until he returns to the floor in the frontcourt. So catching the ball in flight means the OAB rule was violated. Same as a guy who is out of bounds, jumps back inbounds and catches a ball in flight...illegal play. The player still has out of bound status.
yes, I am sure you are correct. The issue revolves around "possession". If "possession" was never truly obtained by UK, as determined by the fact that the shot clock never started, then NR was NOT out of bounds, and it is a moot point.
Well, Hagans had both hands on the ball and tried to pass it to Sestina....not sure if the shot clock operator handled it properly. The officials obviously thought Hagans had secured player control which is what matters.
I agree.. the key section is "deflected by a defensive player." It was deflected by an offensive player....Maxey. The call was correct.
Not according to the rule quoted above. Once it's tapped by the defender, establishing loose ball status, it doesn't matter who it hits last before it goes over half court, either team is allowed to retrieve it.
Wow, didn't realize it could be last touched by the offense and still recovered by the offense. I can almost guarantee that the officials would call that over and back.
"A pass or any other loose ball in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.”
Two points from my perspective that have impact:
If the officials ruled it was not a loose ball and Kentucky officially had possession, then because it was an offensive player (Maxey), not a defensive player, who deflected the ball causing it to go into the backcourt an OAB violation occurred. The rule quoted above stipulated it must be a deflection by a defensive player causing the ball to go into the backcourt (even if last touched by an offensive player) for there to be no OAB. However, under this scenario it was an offensive player deflecting the ball into the backcourt thus the violation.
Obviously, the officials considered Kentucky had possession and that Maxey deflected the ball into the backcourt where Richards was the first player to come into contact with the ball prior to establishing himself in the front court thus creating the OAB violation.
Two points from my perspective that have impact:
- Did the officials rule UK had possession?
- Which team deflected the ball causing it to go into the backcourt?
If the officials ruled it was not a loose ball and Kentucky officially had possession, then because it was an offensive player (Maxey), not a defensive player, who deflected the ball causing it to go into the backcourt an OAB violation occurred. The rule quoted above stipulated it must be a deflection by a defensive player causing the ball to go into the backcourt (even if last touched by an offensive player) for there to be no OAB. However, under this scenario it was an offensive player deflecting the ball into the backcourt thus the violation.
Obviously, the officials considered Kentucky had possession and that Maxey deflected the ball into the backcourt where Richards was the first player to come into contact with the ball prior to establishing himself in the front court thus creating the OAB violation.
I believe you are editorializing this rule a bit by saying the offensive player is not allowed to intentionally touch the ball after a defensive deflection without the offensive player becoming the source of the deflection.
Here's a rules clarification that isn't 100% the same situation but does seem to show the spirit of the rule is to allow the offense to go after a loose ball that is created by a defensive deflection: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ch...rules/men/Feb2019PRMBB_RuleInterpRule9-12.pdf
Judgment call. Consider there are three pages of debate alone in this thread and the referee had to make that call at the moment, live.
Except that isn’t exactly what he said. Sure, under the rule the offensive player can go after, touch or even gain possession of the ball in the backcourt after a defensive player deflected the ball in a way that would otherwise have resulted in the ball going into the backcourt. Your comment suggests any type of defensive deflection whether it would result in going into the backcourt or not makes it okay.
The rule you linked makes it clear that the offensive player can go after a deflection by the defensive player even if the offensive player touches the ball and takes it into the backcourt under momentum of the play and it not be a violation. But the deflection by a defensive player that would have caused the ball to go into the backcourt must have occurred first. A deflection by an offensive player causing the ball to go into the backcourt would be an OAB violation if the offensive player touched the ball first in the backcourt.
That's the essence of my argument. The rule these guys are linking too always includes the caveat that the defensive player HAS to cause the deflection to go backcourt. Clearly, in the UK play, the offensive player (Maxey) made the deflection into the backcourt.
I wasn’t thinking about the re establishing part lol
The rule he quoted doesn’t say deflected into back court by a defensive player. It simply says deflected. The causing it to go into back court doesn’t necessary mean he knocked it into back court himself, otherwise saying if the offensive player touched it last wouldn’t make sense. It makes it quite clear that once it is deflected by a defensive player if the offensive player is last to touch it before it crosses half court the offense can still recover the ball without it being a violation.
The NCAA rule says "deflected by a defensive player which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by any team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt." Lincoln Blue linked to it above.
Good god how did the refs miss that ?
They sure seem to catch every travel by UK on the catch the ball and start your dribble which I can never tell if its a travel or not but 1 thing I know is I watch tons of other games and NEVER see it ever called not one time on any other team.
Last edited:
Read it again. The post he gave the response to where you quoted him was a post by Mike D who was quoting a post that did say deflected by a defensive player that would have sent the ball into the backcourt. After that deflection if an offensive player touched it again before or after going into the backcourt no OAB would occur. In this case none of the deflections by Tech appeared would have caused the ball to go into the backcourt.
I guess my point is that the wording is so vague that you can interpret it a couple of different ways. It does say deflected by a defensive player causing the ball to go into back court. However, it follows that by saying if it touches an offensive player before it goes into back court it’s not an over and back if the offense recovers it. It doesn’t say accidentally, or inadvertently, touches the offensive player. How would an offensive player touch the ball last, if not accidentally, where he wouldn’t the one causing the ball to go into back court? The wording leaves open a wide interpretation. One could easily argue any deflection of a ball that becomes a scramble for the ball that ends up in back court was caused by the initial deflection. If they mean that a defensive player knocks the ball into back court and it happens to hit an offensive player on the way, then it should be worded much differently.
That again seems to be adding conditions to the rule that just aren't there (that the ball needed initial momentum that would have carried it into the backcourt).
What about a scenario where a defender deflects a ball towards the side line but it bounces off the leg of an offensive player and rolls into the backcourt? Based on aikenite4uk's earlier interpretation, that would seem to be a situation in which the offense was then allowed to retrieve the ball, therefore saying it is the intent of the offensive player that matters. IE, accidental touches do not count as "deflecting" the ball into the backcourt, but intentional touches do.
In the link I posted earlier, it also says "Rule 9-12.6, after a deflection by the defense in the front court and the offense establishes player control while the player is on the playing court, that player would commit a backcourt violation if he then stepped into the backcourt." Taken in conjunction with the earlier rule, that seems to pretty clearly imply that an offensive player would need to control the ball after any defensive deflection in the front court before a backcourt violation could be called regardless of the ball's momentum after the deflection.
We were the last team to posses the ball and then were the last team to touch the ball before it went into back court and Nick touched it while in the back court. The only way it was a bad call if TT touched it last before it went the the back court! That might have happened!
A
anon_013cn8yrfncx2
Guest
The refs took quite a bit of time discussing. Do we think that they didn’t know the rule, or were talking about if anyone had possession?
The facts are that Hagans gained possession of the ball, passed it to Sestina, who had it knocked loose at the point of reception, with the ensuing scramble whereby Maxey tipped it toward the backcourt and Nick touched the ball while clearly still in back court.
The rules need to be applied to that.
The facts are that Hagans gained possession of the ball, passed it to Sestina, who had it knocked loose at the point of reception, with the ensuing scramble whereby Maxey tipped it toward the backcourt and Nick touched the ball while clearly still in back court.
The rules need to be applied to that.
No neutrality got it right. Hagans has possession of the ball and made a pass to Sestina. TT knocked it loose and Maxey tapped it to Nick who had backcourt status. Call was correct and yes I am a referee.
The mistake you're making, & others are having a hard time understanding is you have to stop at "Hagans has possession, period. There is no "then nobody had possession" level. TEAM possession changes if Tech gained clear possession which they did not. So possession stays with us & the onus to keep possession on ours side of the court stays with us too even if a scrum for the ball occurs.
The only thing that would relieve that onus is if Tech caused the ball to go in the backcourt & they did ultimately didn't. It's clear the last act that caused the ball to go backcourt was by Maxey.
The damn referee is looking right at him. We got called for I think 4 walks and not one was legit. We were obviously supposed to lose that game.
Admittedly, it leaves some room for interpretation as many rules do. But in your scenario where the ball bounces accidentally off the leg of an offensive player I believe it depends on whether or not the ball would have gone into the backcourt due to the deflection made by the defensive player had no one else touched it. If so then the offensive player can go into the backcourt and retrieve the ball even if it hit the offensive player last. If the defensive player’s defection would not have sent the ball into the backcourt but upon hitting the offensive player it was deflected again to now go into backcourt, the offensive player could not retrieve the ball first without it being an OAB violation. JMO.