So what was up with that Kadary OOB call last night? | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

So what was up with that Kadary OOB call last night?

I was so baffled that I’m not even sure what they thought they were calling. Been around an awful lot of b-ball over the years. Not sure I’ve ever seen that call.
I immediately rewound it because I was so baffled.
 
it was just a bad call. unless he ruled he went ob on his own and then he is not allowed to be part of the play.. but thats not what he ruled based on his hand singles.

The bigger issue is that there are 2 other refs.. If they play was that confusing and the people were all arguing it why didnt they ask what he called and then correct it.. its a correctable mistake.
 
Reached out to a ref friend of mine. I wish I could have found a video of it to share, but I think he got what I was saying. Here was his response:

Based on what they called it sounds as if they felt even though he passed the ball, the player after passing the ball left the court on purpose to gain an advantage, came back on court in a better position to receive the pass back. So if that is the case they would be correct . It’s a weird one. I’ve never seen it called or called it. It’s a violation to leave the court for an unauthorized reason. The big issue is the advantage. Good example would be A1 receives a pass in the restricted area of the lane. A1 passes to A2 outside the 3 point line. In order to get the 3 second count stopped A1 steps directly out of bounds under A’s basket.

I have a hard time rationalizing KR passed the ball to improve his position, so that's where I think the refs got the call wrong.

I read on another site where a ref called it once because a guy pretended to come out of the game, went and sat on the bench, and then came back onto the court to lead a fast break (the ultimate rope-a-dope cherry pick). But that was a college intramural game.
 
Was anyone able to find this play online?
 
  • Apparently, that's sorta like saving it to himself if he comes back inbounds. Had he stayed out of bounds he could have avoided this mess because if Q passed it back to him he would have just been out of bounds. Turnover.

  • However, by coming back in bounds he made himself out of bounds again.'

So... kind of like a Schroedinger's Cat in bound. K is inbounds. unless he actually plays basketball, if he does play basketball, he is out of bounds.

Or perhaps a Catch-22 out of bounds?

My head hurts.
 
There's that famous play of Jordan's where he saves a ball to Pippen as he's falling OOB then gets it right back. Was it any different than that?
College vs Pro?
 
That was never my understanding of the rule. I always thought it was for situations like saving the ball from going out of bounds. Player A saves ball, ends up OB. Player A can't touch ball until another player touches ball.

In KRs situation, he passed the ball, ended up OB. He is not the first player to touch the ball anymore. He entered back onto the court with 2 feet after being OB.

My initial take on the call was because they didn't think he regained position on the court as they thought he was still coming in from OB when he touched it. I'm going with that until someone can prove otherwise.
 
That was never my understanding of the rule. I always thought it was for situations like saving the ball from going out of bounds. Player A saves ball, ends up OB. Player A can't touch ball until another player touches ball.

In KRs situation, he passed the ball, ended up OB. He is not the first player to touch the ball anymore. He entered back onto the court with 2 feet after being OB.

My initial take on the call was because they didn't think he regained position on the court as they thought he was still coming in from OB when he touched it. I'm going with that until someone can prove otherwise.
Plus, Quincy had the ball for a second or two. It's not like it was a tap pass immediately back to Kadary.
 
That was never my understanding of the rule. I always thought it was for situations like saving the ball from going out of bounds. Player A saves ball, ends up OB. Player A can't touch ball until another player touches ball.

In KRs situation, he passed the ball, ended up OB. He is not the first player to touch the ball anymore. He entered back onto the court with 2 feet after being OB.

My initial take on the call was because they didn't think he regained position on the court as they thought he was still coming in from OB when he touched it. I'm going with that until someone can prove otherwise.
No, it was about gaining an advantage by going out of bounds. He didn't really gain the advantage, but that's what was called.

Think of it this way. Player A1 is in the right corner. He runs toward the lane where players A2 and A3 are setting a huge screen for player B1 who is defending A1. A1 goes out of bounds under the basket toward the left side, comes back in bounds at the left block and receives the pass. Pretty sure they could call a violation for that as well, although we've all seen similar plays.

I don't know for sure though. Just seemed like a really odd call.

And I really wish we could see that again.
 
No, it was about gaining an advantage by going out of bounds. He didn't really gain the advantage, but that's what was called.

Think of it this way. Player A1 is in the right corner. He runs toward the lane where players A2 and A3 are setting a huge screen for player B1 who is defending A1. A1 goes out of bounds under the basket toward the left side, comes back in bounds at the left block and receives the pass. Pretty sure they could call a violation for that as well, although we've all seen similar plays.

I don't know for sure though. Just seemed like a really odd call.

And I really wish we could see that again.
That's a good point. Players go OOB running the baseline all the time. It's never a big deal.
 
That's a good point. Players go OOB running the baseline all the time. It's never a big deal.
Totally. But maybe they aren't the first to receive the pass. Will be worth watching for in the next game to see how often it occurs. If it becomes a designed play, that's when the refs would likely step in and call the violation.

Interesting, got thinking while typing this. We have a designed OOB play that does exactly this. Buddy throws it in from the end line to Marek, and immediately sprints to the corner behind Marek to get the corner three shot. Difference is that the OOB throw in is not of his 'own volition' as the rule does not allow.
 
Was anyone able to find this play online?
I captured a clip from the Watch ESPN replay of the game, starting around 27:35 of the replay (5:15 left in the first half on the game clock).


Contrary to what the announcer said, I'm not so sure that Kadary had established himself with both feet inbound before receiving the pass back from Quincy. When I first watched the game, I thought Kadary had gotten two feet inbounds. But after re-watching the replay a couple of times, it looks like his first foot step was on the line, as you can see in this screen shot:

Kadary Play.jpg


So maybe it's as simple as that.
 
I captured a clip from the Watch ESPN replay of the game, starting around 27:35 of the replay (5:15 left in the first half on the game clock).


Contrary to what the announcer said, I'm not so sure that Kadary had established himself with both feet inbound before receiving the pass back from Quincy. When I first watched the game, I thought Kadary had gotten two feet inbounds. But after re-watching the replay a couple of times, it looks like his first foot step was on the line, as you can see in this screen shot:

View attachment 195259

So maybe it's as simple as that.
Awesome work there. Really hard to see if he gets the left foot back down before the ball arrives.

Was it the underneath ref who blew the whistle?
 
Quincy really should have just exploded up and shot that ball and there would have been no controversy. Would likely have gotten fouled...
 
I captured a clip from the Watch ESPN replay of the game, starting around 27:35 of the replay (5:15 left in the first half on the game clock).


Contrary to what the announcer said, I'm not so sure that Kadary had established himself with both feet inbound before receiving the pass back from Quincy. When I first watched the game, I thought Kadary had gotten two feet inbounds. But after re-watching the replay a couple of times, it looks like his first foot step was on the line, as you can see in this screen shot:

View attachment 195259

So maybe it's as simple as that.
If that's how it got called, that's incredibly dumb and nitpicky.

Dude's gotta be NFL wide receiver conscious of the end line to come back in play and catch a pass. I'll see that ref in Hell. This is never called, for any reason.
 
I captured a clip from the Watch ESPN replay of the game, starting around 27:35 of the replay (5:15 left in the first half on the game clock).


Contrary to what the announcer said, I'm not so sure that Kadary had established himself with both feet inbound before receiving the pass back from Quincy. When I first watched the game, I thought Kadary had gotten two feet inbounds. But after re-watching the replay a couple of times, it looks like his first foot step was on the line, as you can see in this screen shot:

View attachment 195259

So maybe it's as simple as that.
Yeah, that replay seems to show that he hadn't gotten his feet down in bounds before getting the ball back.
 
Awesome work there. Really hard to see if he gets the left foot back down before the ball arrives.

Was it the underneath ref who blew the whistle?
It looks like the underneath ref was the one who blew the whistle. He was the only ref to raise his hand (signaling "stop the clock") and he then pointed to the base line. One announcer (O'Brien ??) initially said the ruling was "on the line," but then the other announcer (Alexander ??) said (maybe incorrectly) that Kadary was established inbounds. I'm not sure the ref got a very good look at Kadary's feet, but he did point / gesture toward the baseline.
 
Yeah, I thought he established himself but clearly he did not based on that replay.

That is the most logical reason why the play was stopped. I don't buy the advantage call because I've never seen that called before in a game.
 
My interpretation of the rule after listening to Corey Alexander goes like this:

  • Kadary was falling out of bounds, as a result he couldn't save it to himself.

  • He didn't. He passed it to Q. That's where the problems begin.

  • Apparently, that's sorta like saving it to himself if he comes back inbounds. Had he stayed out of bounds he could have avoided this mess because if Q passed it back to him he would have just been out of bounds. Turnover.

  • However, by coming back in bounds he made himself out of bounds again.

  • So, Q, at this point cannot pass it to him because no matter where he is on the court, he remains out of bounds. Unless he was forced out of bounds by someone else. If he was forced out of bounds, he could come back on the court, and be in bounds, but could not touch the ball and should go back one step and re-read the rules.

  • Essentially, Q needed to pass it to someone else, let's say JG, who then, assuming Kadary had been back in bounds for a bit, could have received the ball again.

  • Any touch prior to that was him still being out of bounds. Unless he was forced out of bounds. In which case he was permanently inbounds?
This is incorrect. I believe the rule which was applied incorrectly is that you cannot leave the court for an unauthorized reason. You can’t avoid a defender or played traffic by running off the court. That is a violation. Richmonds momentum carried him off the court following a basketball play. There was no violation. All he had to do was reestablish himself inbounds by getting a foot down. It was just a bad call. It is most often called when a player avoids and runs out on the court and receives a pass.
 
It looks like the underneath ref was the one who blew the whistle. He was the only ref to raise his hand (signaling "stop the clock") and he then pointed to the base line. One announcer (O'Brien ??) initially said the ruling was "on the line," but then the other announcer (Alexander ??) said (maybe incorrectly) that Kadary was established inbounds. I'm not sure the ref got a very good look at Kadary's feet, but he did point / gesture toward the baseline.
He put a foot down before he recieved the pass. He was inbounds.
 
No, it was about gaining an advantage by going out of bounds. He didn't really gain the advantage, but that's what was called.

Think of it this way. Player A1 is in the right corner. He runs toward the lane where players A2 and A3 are setting a huge screen for player B1 who is defending A1. A1 goes out of bounds under the basket toward the left side, comes back in bounds at the left block and receives the pass. Pretty sure they could call a violation for that as well, although we've all seen similar plays.

I don't know for sure though. Just seemed like a really odd call.

And I really wish we could see that again.
thats a play that has bugged me for yearss.. never gets called and its clearly the intent of the rule.. this yr though i have seen it called 2-3 times maybe they finally decided to enforce it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,128
Messages
4,681,773
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
307
Guests online
2,147
Total visitors
2,454


Top Bottom