Backcourt Violation?
Top Comments
All Comments (232)
-
fuck these stupid rules
STREETBALL!!!!!
-
So after reading all the comments and rules that were posted someone correct me if i'm wrong.
This is NOT a back court violation because it is within the last two minutes of the 4th quarter, the rule says the ball can be passed into the back court if it is the last 2 minutes of the 4th.
if it were any other quarter it would be a back court violation because before possession of the ball his feet were established in the front court before the ball was thrown in.
right?? :\
-
@chabowker Ok, then yes, that was and is the rule. They didn't change it, but they were willing to overlook it for this game or this possession if it meant it would put the Mavs at a disadvantage. Which it clearly did.
See also: buzzer beater in game 3 at the end of the first.
-
@xxplanoxx And how was I supposed to pick up on that? I didn't realize sarcasm was supposed to be immediately identifiable through written text.
-
@chabowker I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you BTW. I see you didn't pick up on that.
-
@xxplanoxx OMGLOLZ!!!!!
-
@chabowker they changed it, but just for that game
-
@Redsdelight Here's why you're WRONG. He can catch the ball in the backcourt is he is established there, but he never established himself in the backcourt. He jumped from the frontcourt (where he was established), caught the ball in mid-air, and landed in the back court. Because he was established in the front court and never established himself in the back court, IT IS A BACK COURT VIOLATION.
I understand why you don't know the subtleties of the rule, but why don't the refs?
-
@IanRuebel Nah that wasnt rigged. KINGS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE CHAMPS IN 2002. Kings vs Lakers = most rigged series ever
-
@IanRuebel 3??? i counted one
When his feet hit first the ground with the ball is when the possession starts. No violation.
MattyPittorino 2 years ago 4
Even if it wasn't a backcourt violation, it was still a travel.
ajcolor 2 years ago 3