UT over and back

[War Dam Eagle]

Late in Tennessee game, I believe Brandon Boston was whistled for an over and back violation when he received a pass but hadn’t yet established himself in the backcourt. I have played this over in my mind and I think it was the wrong call. Over and back requires establishment of two points and the ball into the front court and then when a player or the ball touches or crosses the mid court line it is a violation. The Boston play could not satisfy any of these criteria. It was not over and back. Had the ball crossed mid court and the player was running from the back court he must establish himself in the front court before touching the ball or it would be over snd back; however, what happened in Knoxville should not have been whistled.
Someone please inform me if I’m incorrect

 

[FanofUK]

I agree I think it was the wrong call. And I wanted to beat them by 50

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

At different levels (elementary through NBA), I've seen this called different ways. if only the ball crosses midcourt, if the player steps on the stripe, or not establish position like Boston. So many different interpretations at different levels, I get confused or the zebras do.

 

[Kingslayer07]

Late in Tennessee game, I believe Brandon Boston was whistled for an over and back violation when he received a pass but hadn’t yet established himself in the backcourt. I have played this over in my mind and I think it was the wrong call. Over and back requires establishment of two points and the ball into the front court and then when a player or the ball touches or crosses the mid court line it is a violation. The Boston play could not satisfy any of these criteria. It was not over and back. Had the ball crossed mid court and the player was running from the back court he must establish himself in the front court before touching the ball or it would be over snd back; however, what happened in Knoxville should not have been whistled.
Someone please inform me if I’m incorrect

You are 100 percent correct. Ball and both feet need to be established in the front court before entering the back court. Never had ball and 2 feet across the timeline to be able for it to be a "back court" violation.

 

[csjones]

There are only 3 instances where a player may legally jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air and land in the back. They are during a jump ball, a throw in and/or while playing defense. Rule 9.9.3 from NFHS BB Rules
When BJ jumped from the front court he front court status. Caught the ball in the air while having front court status. Landing in the backcourt causing the violation.

 

[SmyrnaCatFan]

There are only 3 instances where a player may legally jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air and land in the back. They are during a jump ball, a throw in and/or while playing defense. Rule 9.9.3 from NFHS BB Rules
When BJ jumped from the front court he front court status. Caught the ball in the air while having front court status. Landing in the backcourt causing the violation.

In the infamous 2015 game versus WI, the inbounder jumped in caught the ball before establishing himself in-bounds made the layup. I still see that play in my nightmares. Basket shouldn't count and out-of-bounds to us. Same principle as Boston's over-and-back.

 

[revcort]

I'm pretty sure the call was correct, much as I hate it. Because Boston had already established himself in the front court, when he caught the ball in midair while jumping from front to back court, the ball and the player had then been established in front court in midair. Then when he landed in backcourt, that was the violation. While he was in midair, he was legal. If he had landed with both feet in front court, all would have been fine, but he landed in backcourt. I called the violation myself when I saw it.

 

[Kingslayer07]

There are only 3 instances where a player may legally jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air and land in the back. They are during a jump ball, a throw in and/or while playing defense. Rule 9.9.3 from NFHS BB Rules
When BJ jumped from the front court he front court status. Caught the ball in the air while having front court status. Landing in the backcourt causing the violation.

Did not possess the ball in the front court therefor a non violation. This has been hammered to death. It was a bad call

 

[Tapemaster8]

Did not possess the ball in the front court therefor a non violation. This has been hammered to death. It was a bad call

If Boston left the front court by jumping in the air. He would be considered in the front court and the ball would also be considered in the front court, then when he landed in the back court the ball would be considered in the backcourt to, consequently it would be technically over and back.

 

[csjones]

I'm pretty sure the call was correct, much as I hate it. Because Boston had already established himself in the front court, when he caught the ball in midair while jumping from front to back court, the ball and the player had then been established in front court in midair. Then when he landed in backcourt, that was the violation. While he was in midair, he was legal. If he had landed with both feet in front court, all would have been fine, but he landed in backcourt. I called the violation myself when I saw it.

I agree

 

[Soupbean]

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ch...rules/men/Feb2019PRMBB_RuleInterpRule9-12.pdf

 

[Kingslayer07]

If Boston left the front court by jumping in the air. He would be considered in the front court and the ball would also be considered in the front court, then when he landed in the back court the ball would be considered in the backcourt to, consequently it would be technically over and back.

No. You need two elements to be established in the front court. Ball and man. Pretty simple, the Ball never crossed the timeline completely, neither was Boston to be established. Not sure why this is so hard

 

[Kingslayer07]

I'm pretty sure the call was correct, much as I hate it. Because Boston had already established himself in the front court, when he caught the ball in midair while jumping from front to back court, the ball and the player had then been established in front court in midair. Then when he landed in backcourt, that was the violation. While he was in midair, he was legal. If he had landed with both feet in front court, all would have been fine, but he landed in backcourt. I called the violation myself when I saw it.

The ball did not cross half court. Therefore it's impossible to have a "back court" violation

 

[whack0001]

Anybody have a clip?

 

[gossie21_rivals69805]

Off-topic, but related. The over-and-back call the bothered me the most was in the 1996 title game. The ball get's tipped away from Syracuse in the backcourt and Mark Pope secures the ball with his toe on midcourt line. He didn't move from the front court to the backcourt. Nor did his team even have posession. Technically he stole the ball while standing on the midcourt line. They called it over-and-back. Thankfully it didn't end up changing anything even though that 2nd half got down to a 2-pt game late.

 

[Kingslayer07]

Anybody have a clip?

1 hour 17 minute mark

 

[Col. Angus]

You have to establish yourself in the back court before catching the ball and Boston didn’t. Same as being out of bounds. Super easy call.

 

[CGblue]

It's kind of an outdated and dumb-*** rule. We have a shot clock, just open up the whole floor. I'm not big on rule changes but the zebras aren't currently able to keep up

 

[wildcatdon]

If Boston left the front court by jumping in the air. He would be considered in the front court and the ball would also be considered in the front court, then when he landed in the back court the ball would be considered in the backcourt to, consequently it would be technically over and back.

You won’t convince him. I tried to explain the same thing in another thread. He thinks everyone else is wrong. The call was correct. The ball is considered in the frontcourt with the guy that left the floor. Simple as that.

 

[wildcatdon]

The ball did not cross half court. Therefore it's impossible to have a "back court" violation

You are still wrong just as I told you in the other thread.

 

[Kingslayer07]

You won’t convince him. I tried to explain the same thing in another thread. He thinks everyone else is wrong. The call was correct. The ball is considered in the frontcourt with the guy that left the floor. Simple as that.

Lol... no. It wasn't.

 

[Kingslayer07]

You are still wrong just as I told you in the other thread.

You need BOTH elements in the frontcourt. 2 feet AND ball. Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend.. perhaps I can draw you a picture?

 

[tls]

Lol... no. It wasn't.

So if the guy is just running toward the back court and has one foot over the line and catches the ball in back court, it’s a violation? Clearly if he was never in front court and was straddling the line it would not be.

 

[Kingslayer07]

So if the guy is just running toward the back court and has one foot over the line and catches the ball in back court, it’s a violation? Clearly if he was never in front court and was straddling the line it would not be.

If the ball is advanced across half court and a player touches the ball while a foot is in the backcourt then yes that is an over and back. If he was straddling the line with the ball still in the backcourt then no its not

 

[wildcatdon]

You need BOTH elements in the frontcourt. 2 feet AND ball. Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend.. perhaps I can draw you a picture?

And I am telling you the ball is considered in the frontcourt with the guy that left the floor to catch the pass. I have been an official for 45 yrs. I know the rule. Another person just posted it above. Don’t know what your problem is but you are wrong.

 

[Kingslayer07]

And I am telling you the ball is considered in the frontcourt with the guy that left the floor to catch the pass. I have been an official for 45 yrs. I know the rule. Another person just posted it above. Don’t know what your problem is but you are wrong.

What is your address I can send you an illustration. You have been wrong for 45 years..sorry to break it to you.

 

[Pickle_Rick]

At different levels (elementary through NBA), I've seen this called different ways. if only the ball crosses midcourt, if the player steps on the stripe, or not establish position like Boston. So many different interpretations at different levels, I get confused or the zebras do.

The zebra's are never confused. They apply the interpretations that will cover the point spread.

 

[csjones]

And I am telling you the ball is considered in the frontcourt with the guy that left the floor to catch the pass. I have been an official for 45 yrs. I know the rule. Another person just posted it above. Don’t know what your problem is but you are wrong.

Thank you!

 

[revcort]

The ball did not cross half court. Therefore it's impossible to have a "back court" violation

I believe the rule says that the player was established in front court and when he caught the ball in midair now the ball is established in front court as well. When he lands, it's backcourt.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

The ball did not cross half court. Therefore it's impossible to have a "back court" violation

I'm not so sure about that. From the NCAA rulebook:

When a player is in the air from a leap (except during a throw-in) or when a defensive player intercepts a ball while in the air, the player’s status with reference to these two situations shall be the same as at the time the player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

This means when he jumped from the front court and caught the ball in the air, he was considered to be in the front court. Then when he landed, he had gone into the backcourt.

 

[revcort]

I'm not so sure about that. From the NCAA rulebook:



This means when he jumped from the front court and caught the ball in the air, he was considered to be in the front court. Then when he landed, he had gone into the backcourt.

Yep, this is the rule. The call was correct, much as we all hate it in this instance.

 

[jackcarlson]

bigbluedon is correct. yes, it IS counterintuitive, because the ball itself never crossed the line. The main reason this all seems weird to us, is that we are used to football, where the location of the ball is what matters! In basketball however, whenever a player is in the air, he is still considered to be in any court that his feet just left, UNTIL he comes down.

NOW, all that being said, the officials have put the kubosh on what players used to do......fairly often: which was calling a timeout when they were IN THE AIR flying out of bounds with the ball. If one uses the same logic as the midcourt situation we have discussed here, it SHOULD still be legal to call a TO while in the air!

 

[Kingslayer07]

Yep, this is the rule. The call was correct, much as we all hate it in this instance.

I'd love to see the quoted rule

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

I'd love to see the quoted rule

Rule 9 Section 12 Article 3 of the NCAA men's basketball rule book:

"Art. 3. A live ball is in the front court or backcourt of the team in control as follows: a. A ball that is in contact with a player or with the playing court shall be in the backcourt when either the ball or the player (either player when the ball is touching more than one) is touching the backcourt. It shall be in the front court when neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt; b. A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the playing court; and c. During a dribble from backcourt to front court, the ball shall be in the frontcourt when both feet of the dribbler and the ball touch the playing court entirely in the front court. "

I posted above from Rule 4 Section 23 Article 2 that when a player jumps into the air, they retain the same position status they had when the left the ground.

Boston jumped from the frontcourt and was still in the air, therefore he was considered to be in the frontcourt. If the ball is touching a player in the frontcourt, the ball is considered to be in the frontcourt. The rule on both feet and the ball having to cross half court only applies to the ball being dribbled across half court, as quoted above in italics.

The call was correct.