im asuming u mean the rule allows u to throw the ball into the back court. if thats the case, i know. however, if the in bounds pass goes into the backcourt, the player recieving the ball would have had to been established in the backcourt (both feet having last touched or in the backcourt) which wade's were not. when wade caught the ball, he was in mid air, his feet last touched the frontcourt which means the ball was "in" the frontcourt and he took it to the backcourt...violation. thats what im argueing.
i hate cuban as much as anyone, but, i think alot off people r missunderstanding his arguement. he wasnt saying u cant inbound into the backcourt...if u havent watched the clip that was posted in here, here it is...http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/V...71403&catId=104 even the commentater guy at the end gets it and gets it right.
thats where his feet last touched...i dont see how this is so hard to understand. its like when u see a player out of bounds under his basket and he sees it coming at him so he jumps up recieving the ball in the air and trys to shoot it...u cant do that...ur feet last touched the out of bounds and u are considered out of bounds until both ur feet r on or last touched the court. thats the same case here, wade hadnt had his feet on the backcourt yet when he caught the ball. he caught it in mid air in transitioning from the front court to the backcourt. his feet last touched the front court so he should have been considered in the front court when he got the ball...again because when he caught it, he didnt touch the backcourt yet.
maybe im over explaining it...lets try it again. where a player is established on the court is determined by where that players feet ARE or LAST TOUCHED. so to say again...wade hadnt had his feet on the backcourt yet when he caught the ball. he caught it in mid air in transitioning from the front court to the backcourt. his feet last touched the front court so he should have been considered established in the front court when he got the ball (no violation yet while he is in the air), but when he landed, he landed in the backcourt(thats the violation). so technically he went from frontcourt with the ball to the backcourt.
No youre not overexplaining it -- we get it. It's just that this kind of stuff (positive establishment or whatever) is OPEN to interpretation. And to the best of my knowledge, the new rule was made so that there won't be any backcourt violations called during this inbounds play. So that the player getting the ball has more room to operate. So either way, the refs pretty much wont call the backcourt violation. Unless of course wade catches and lands in the frontcourt and then step over to the backcourt -- obviously, that would be a call. They won't call something that is so close to going either way.
I'm not trying to call you out or be a jerk about it, seriously, but is there any passage in the rule book that actually states this?
honestly, i havent seen or actually looked for it but in the number 6th post in this thread by mcgrady, there is a link to a video that shows cuban saying the same general things i am (we can only wonder about how many times he reads the rule book) and the commentater guy at the end re-affirms it. aside from that, im basing this on my own experiences playing on school teams through high school. THOUGH I KNOW MANY CALLS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE NBA, THE WHOLE "WHERE UR FEET ARE" AND SUCH WAS ALWAYS THE SAME...
To all the rule-mongers out there, what about jumping out of bounds with the ball and calling a time-out?? Thats not allowed, but by your rules, the possession is from where the players feet last were established, so as long as you take off from in bounds, you should be able to call timeout....Why then is the rule (As you put it) different from that...? Here's the way I understand it. The ball was not yet in play (Still out of bounds) so NO'One's feet were establiished anywhere on the court (By the rule book) because play had not began (Thus people can start a play out of bounds and run anywhere they so choose before the ball is in bounds). The play began once the ball touched Wade's hand (Thus the clock started), and AS the ball touched his hands, his feet were in the air, giving no established position until he landed in the back court (Which we've already discussed is ok by NBA rules.)... Thats the way I see it. I suppose conspiracy theorists can argue about the color of the sky, and will always do so, but I see it as a clean play and no violation...But thats just my opinion....
There is a discussion on another board about the confusion on Dallas sideline. Someone there posted this picture and pointed out both Devin Harris and Josh Howard were signaling timeout. So he concluded that the timeout decision must have originated from the sideline. Interesting assertion.
It shouldn't matter, play hasn't started till someone besides the guy throwing in the ball catches catches the ball. Wade was in the air and he lands in the backcourt the play clock continues.
OK, I didn't understand a lick of that, but I would love to tell Mark Cuban that the NBA game is called differently from high school wankfests. You're allowed to dive into the backcourt during the last two minutes, as Mark knows, and if you catch the pass in mid-air while in the frontcourt and land in the backcourt, then you're technically legal. You'll notice, on Monday, Cuban didn't appear on any of the PTI/ATH/NBA TV/SportsCenter/whatever cathode tube-betrayers to b**** and moan. He stuck to Mavs camp. Why? Did he have anything to lose? If the owner gets suspended ... uh, who cares? Why not take your "case" to the airwaves? Why spend time on your blog defending (without being asked) your petulant/childish reactions to the questions offered during the post-game interviews on Sunday night? If this bias is so prevalent, this ineptitude so obvious, then where has Mark been? Avery took to the press before Game 5, I let him have it, but at least he stood to face the music. Where's Mark? Where's the anger, Mark? Where's the outrage? If you were wronged, then, why not let others know about it? Or ...
Someone just said it, but I'll make it a little more clear... In this particular situation, A player's position is not technically established until he has possession of the ball. What happened is Wade jumped from the front court to the backcourt, catching the ball very shortly after take off. He did not have the ball while his feet were touching the frontcourt. After catching the ball the next place his feet landed were in the backcourt, therefore that was his first established position according to the rules. In other words... Foot/feet on the ground + Possession of ball = Established position. The FIRST time Wade had his feet on the ground AND the ball, was in the backcourt. Therefore, the BACKCOURT was his original established position of the play.
Also, here is Josh Howard calling timeout twice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CI-2xzcEsc Once on the left side of the lane, once on the right.
WOW... what a video. Is this from a fan? If so, youtube is a freaking genius of an invention, and the internet never ceases to AMAZE me. You can clearly see on the video that Josh Howard motions for the timeout. But, you can also see on the video a possible REASON why he thought they were definitely taking a timeout at that moment: Shaq and Posey decide to exchange places so that Posey will be going for a rebound, and Shaq is going to the backcourt, or heading to the bench. This move obviously is unorthodox for Mavs purposes... hell, it seemed strange by Heat purposes too (wouldn't you want your best rebounder, Shaq, available to put in a possible miss by Wade... especially if you're expecting Dallas to call timeout after the SECOND FT, meaning they would then have an opportunity to get Shaq out of the game if he didn't get the rebound anyways?). Additionally, BOTH Erik Dampier AND Howard start walking to the bench... even further adding fuel that the timeout call was from the bench (or the combo of the Heat switching personel at the exact moment AJ was signalling the confirmatory "call timeout.... but not now, later" was what led up to Josh Howard thinking they wanted a timeout now). Also, the fact that both guys are taking steps toward the bench gives even more reason for the ref to believe that the team actually does want a timeout. At least this issue can be put to bed... and AJ (who is still whining about it) can stop now. As for the backcourt issue... you guys are overanalyzing the hell out of it. Wade had gone to the backcourt on the previous possesion as well (with a more definitive establishment of position), so it wasn't like this was an unprecedented trip back there. Also, it wasn't like Dallas was playing super defense and he was forced back there... it was the set play. Finally, it wasn't like going/getting to the ball in the backcourt gave him an unfair advantage... if anything, it made it EASIER for Dallas to attempt a double-team.
After watching that again I don't see how Howard can say that he didn't mean to call a timeout, him and Dampier are both heading to the bench, he doesn't start to complain until he see Avery
There is no excuse for what AJ did last night. It seems like whenever his team is struggling (going back to last years playoffs) he acts like an ass towards the media.
It wasn't a ridiculous question in and of itself. I believe the reporter was obviously baiting Avery into an answer related to how ridiculous the foul call was (or how it should have been a no call, etc. etc. etc.), which most likely (due to Avery's then current state of mind) would have caused a whole new line of Q&A and a snowball effect that may have led Avery into a tirade, a fine, and perhaps more. I don't believe it was a "face value" question. I won't condone Avery's comment about stuttering. But in that situation, with his blood likely already boiling from what happened, I would have probably done everything I could to diffuse and avert a blow up as well. Mr. Reporter was doing his job. Plain and simple. But I merely think Avery was trying to avoid a real meltdown. I can appreciate sarcasm as well.
