Quote:
Originally posted by refTN
Thanks for the incites guys.
|
What did we incite? (Sarcasm sponsored in part by Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy.)
To get to your actual point. . .
It's kind of scary how often this is happening in the last month or so, but once again, I find myself agreeing with Rut.
This is not an issue of politics. It's not about who you snuggle up to after association meetings, or who else is getting assignments that they don't deserve.
This is about whether or not you should enforce an obvious violation that gave one team a clear advantage in the final seconds of a close game. And I agree with (what seems to be) the majority here. You call it. And you call it precisely because it gave the throw-in team a big advantage. As JR pointed out, the inbounder saved some time by not being completely OOB. And when you have to go the length of the court in 3 seconds, that's a big advantage.
And, in fact, the NCAA handed down a dictum from on high a few years ago on this very subject. Your situation occured in a D1 NCAA tournament game (women's, I believe). The official did
not call the violation, but it was obvious to the defensive coach and to the cameras. There was a bulletin or something (Bob or rocky may have the precise details) that instructed officials to call the violation. Even in a close game. Even with no defensive pressure.
I
hope that somebody will have a reference for that bulletin, b/c I don't have it, but I remember it happening.