NBA Refs X Account Delivers Snarky Response to Criticism of Non-Call in Sixers-Hawks Game

The NBA Referees Association doubled down on a late controversial no-call in Sunday's game between the Sixers and Atlanta Hawks via a post from their official X account on Monday evening.

With Philadelphia trailing by one point with 2.5 seconds remaining in regulation, VJ Edgecombe chased Nickeil Alexander-Walker to the ball as he looked to receive the inbound pass from Jalen Johnson. Alexander-Walker took two steps as he caught the ball and dribbled, across the midcourt line, ostensibly committing what is known as a backcourt violation.

No call was made. Instead of it being a dead-ball turnover that would've given Philadelphia possession with a timeout and ample time left, the intentional foul stood. Atlanta expanded the lead to three points with 2.4 seconds left on the ensuing Alexander-Walker free throws.

On Monday evening's Last Two Minute report, the officials affirmed that it was a correct no call, reasoning that "Alexander-Walker's (ATL) momentum carries him into the backcourt, which is legal in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter and ovetime".

That seems like a reasonable, contextualized explanation. Everyone who has ever paid close attention to the sport would've called it a backcourt violation. But fine, you want to allow for certain circumstances, that seems fair enough.

But it gets iffy when you look at the rulebook.

The only mention of the word "momentum" comes in relation to a note on the topic of player conduct as it relates to spectators. There is no mention of that word in the section on that rule.

It gets even iffier when you look at the rule.

"Any ball out-of-bounds in a team's frontcourt or at the midcourt line cannot be passed into the backcourt. On all backcourt and midcourt violations, the ball shall be awarded to the opposing team at the midocourt line, and must be passed into the frontcourt," the rule says.

But there is an exception.

"During the last two minutes of the fourth period and the last two minutes of any overtime period, the ball may be passed anywhere (frontcourt or backcourt) on the court."

"However," the exception states, "if the ball is thrown into the frontcourt and an offensive player on the court fails to control the ball and causes it to go into the backcourt, his team may not be the first to touch the ball."

Both the rule and exception are flawed, both in technicalities and logic.

The rule begins with the words "any ball". The introduction of an exception is thus contradictory to the idea of "any ball".

Furthermore, the exception is illogical.

Isn't "momentum" fundamentally a loss of control? Aren't fouls based on a defensive player's momentum carrying him into the offensive player called every game?

Why is the existence of momentum being excused in one rule and punished in another?

And why are words that have function in the very idea of the explanation not mentioned anywhere in proximity to the rule in the rulebook?

All of these things could've been overlooked had the Official NBA Ref account not issued a condescending retort to the criticism.

In a quote of user Erin Grugan, one of the fine folks over at Liberty Ballers, the account said this:

This was not a backcourt violation and has never been a backcourt violation.

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 @alaatweets

See the below thread for more examples: https://t.co/UOWQ9qrTwd
— NBA Referees (@OfficialNBARefs) December 15, 2025

How can anyone be sure of what a backcourt violation is if the rule, as agreed to by the Board of Governors in the premier league in the sport, is contradictory and subjective? How can that rule even function as a rule? It is impossible to say that that thas never been a backcourt violation when there is no ironclad definition of the rule.

Easy enough to argue against, but not worth thinking about too deeply until the next paragraph.

Tagging and publicly calling out someone for not having a solid grasp of a rule that the league, itself, evidently does not solidly grasp seems hypocritical. It's also very difficult to teach people things that are subjective by the letter of the law.

It is worth reiterating that this account appears to represent the referees association. It does not claim to be an official account of the NBA. But difficult to believe that the league or any referee, themselves, would find that to be a professional response to public criticism.