This is a weird one. What else is new in the NBA, though?
Last night, there was a controversial no-call late in the Philadelphia 76ers loss to the Atlanta Hawks on what appeared to be a backcourt violation by Atlanta’s Nickeil Alexander-Walker on an inbound play in the final moments of the game. Here is the play:
I am using
my own tweet here because, full disclosure, I thought this was just a blatantly missed call for a backcourt violation when it happened live. I clearly wasn’t alone, as my post and others like it circulated wildly through social media overnight and into Monday. I was curious to see the Last Two Minutes Report would say, but was otherwise ready to move on with my life.
Then, however, I got a strange notification from the official X account of NBA Referees, or the National Basketball Referees Association (NBRA). Instead of just an explanation of what occurred on this play, the account opted to take things a different route.
My first reaction was to check the account to make sure it was the legitimate account. It is. It’s linked to from the NBRA’s website. I checked because I thought it was not only strange but completely unprofessional to call out and condescend to Alaa Abdelnaby for not understanding the call. “For those calling the game, there is a responsibility to know the NBA rules and explain them correctly in order to properly educate the fans. See the below thread for more examples:”
Woof, OK then. Let’s even put aside the condescension to Abdelnaby and do what they asked, we’ll see the thread for these examples of why this non-call should have been so obvious to Alaa and the rest of us watching…
Well, when you follow the tweet “thread” of examples, it actually just dead-ends at one tweet of one video of a single “example”… and example is a word I’m using loosely there. Let’s watch.
Yep, that was it.
This play from 2023 is the only example they could provide of why the Hawks weren’t called for backcourt violation against the Sixers last night. You may notice that the play is not even remotely similar to the one that played out in Sixers-Hawks. In the clip, Domantis Sabonis is not called for a backcourt violation after taking a single sidestep into the backcourt because the ball had been deflected by the defender and his momentum going for the loose ball was what caused him to take that single step. It is before halftime in this game.
“Momentum applies anytime the ball is loose. By rule this is NOT a backcourt violation,” the tweet concludes.
However, the thread adds that, though it is not a loose ball, the same principal applies on a throw-in in the final two minutes of the fourth period or overtime. The example is merely to show the idea of momentum carrying a player over the line in pursuit of the ball, apparently.
This tweet was from April 25, 2025, when the NBA Refs account used the same video and explanation as justification for the New York Knicks not being called for a backcourt violation in the 2024-25 playoffs in a game against the Detroit Pistons.
This one is a whole lot closer than the Sixers-Hawks situation in terms of subjectivity of momentum, with Jalen Brunson appearing to catch the ball right on the half-court line, with the momentum of actually catching the ball taking him into the backcourt. He didn’t catch it a step and a half away and keep running into the backcourt.
This momentum rule was ultimately provided by the Last Two Minutes Report, which came out Monday evening, as the reasoning for the decision in the Sixers-Hawks game as well.
The official report reads that “Alexander-Walker’s (ATL) momentum carries him into the backcourt, which is legal in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter and overtime.”
However, in the case of Sunday night’s game, that momentum was the player running purposefully in that direction at full speed. That says to me that, basically, backcourt violations do not exist under two minutes to play. If I have the ball and purposefully sprint from the frontcourt to the backcourt a whole step and a half as Alexander-Walker did, is that just “momentum” carrying me?
The problem with this is the gray area. What is considered “momentum” carrying a player and not purposeful movement in the backcourt direction? They’ve used the same video twice now to justify this sort of decision, so there must be a rule in writing, right?
Let’s break out our handy dandy NBA Rulebooks for clarity.
Here’s the strange thing about this entire situation. The word “momentum” appears just once in the online rulebook, and is not remotely in reference to backcourt violations. Here is the word’s only appearance:
Alright, so that didn’t help either to figure out what the referees are referencing. Let’s keep searching the rulebook. There has to be something here… Let’s look at relevant rules.
For throw-ins:
This is the rule that allows a team to inbound directly to the backcourt from the frontcourt in the final two minutes of fourth periods and overtime, but does not say you can carry the ball from the front to the back, even with “momentum”.
And here’s the frontcourt/backcourt rules:
The frontcourt/backcourt section of the rulebook stipulates that, during a throw-in in the final two minutes of the fourth or OT, frontcourt/backcourt status is not attained until a player with the ball has established “a positive position” in either half. Not a single mention about momentum negating a backcourt violation.
The other problem? The phrase “positive position” is never actually defined either. Alexander-Walker caught a direct pass with his left foot down and took a full step to his right foot before crossing over the half-court line. Is that not positive position? Do you get two steps? A dribble?
Let me make something clear, too. I did not go through all of this just to double-double and say “I was right about this and the officials are wrong.” I’m not claiming that at all. I would genuinely have loved to have opened the rulebook, saw this random momentum rule clearly written and defined. I could have just said “huh, that’s interesting then” and moved on — but it’s not about being me being right. I’ve been wrong plenty of times and I guarantee you I will be wrong again in my life. I’ll be the first to admit it.
It’s about questioning why the official NBA Refs account is calling out a broadcaster for not knowing an obscure subsection of a rule that isn’t even actually even in the rulebook; why the same account referenced a video that was not even remotely similar to the situation from last night as the explanation for both this game as well as the Knicks-Pistons playoff contest in April; where this “momentum” rule appears in the rulebook; and how this all culminates in a display of the degraded relationship between NBA officials and those watching or even playing in the games.
It’s about the lack of clarity, transparency and accountability behind NBA officiating.
If, after all you read here, you still aren’t sure what letter of the law the officials used to come to their conclusion from Sunday night, you aren’t alone. This controversial call falls among many, many others across officiating in the NBA. Especially in the times of sports betting and rigging scandals, clarity in the rulebook and transparency from the referees calling these games is crucial.
The NBRA X account’s bio is “Encouraging communication, dialogue and transparency with NBA fans,” but did just the opposite here. Apparently, that means singling out a broadcaster for not knowing a rule that doesn’t even appear with any clarity in the rulebook.
I suppose, in the end, everything is made up and the rules don’t matter.
