UCLA luckiest team in the country

canuckrefguy

Just watched video of the shot...my observations:

1. The shot BARELY crosses the corner of the backboard - I'd say less than a 1/4 of the ball. It's being described as a "horse" shot, but from where he shot it, he has a pretty straight line between ball and hoop, IMO. Certainly in the spirit of the rule, this shot should count; but even by the letter of the rule, I don't think it's a clear violation.

Cal coach asked about the shot during a T.O. and was told it was too close to call. I agree 100%.

2. The centre official has a perfect look at this play - it's almost directly on his sightline. Certainly, if Shipp had been further behind the board, he would have waved it off.

My $0.02.

Back In The Saddle

BktBallRef wrote
Same situation in a HS game. Shot is taken with under 5 seconds remaining, goes over the backboard and in. Team B inbounds the ball as the horn sounds. The T comes to the R and says the ball passed over the backboard. This is during the first dead ball after the score. Can the basket be cancelled for erroneously counting a basket?

I could see this as a CE. If, for example, one partner clearly saw it pass over the backboard, but didn't know the rule, and the other partner was busy ... doing something else, not sure what. Then they got together and discussed it within the time frame for correcting it.

blindzebra

The casebook uses the words passes directly over.

To me directly is intended to mean directly from the front to the back or directly from the back to the front and not over the corner.

I have a difficult time believing that shot passed DIRECTLY over the backboard, because it didn't.

I'd bet that had that shot not had enough air under it it would have struck the side of the backboard and not the back, and for it to fit the directly over stipulation it would need to strike the back.

Nevadaref

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/notebook?page=notebook/atr080309

Mark Dexter

BktBallRef wrote
I disagree. There is no "do-over." "Points scored, consumed time and additional activity, which may occur prior to the recognition of an error, shall not be nullified. "

I think that's all the more reason to not allow this as a correctable error.

A Pennsylvania Coach

Why no T on UCLA for coming on to the floor with 0.1 remaining?

Also, they should've reset the clock all the way to 1.5 due to the violation.

socalreff

A Pennsylvania Coach wrote
Why no T on UCLA for coming on to the floor with 0.1 remaining?

Also, they should've reset the clock all the way to 1.5 due to the violation.

Could have easily been a T.
Can't have a violation without a touch. With a touch some time has to come off, as in 0.3 seconds to leave it at 1.2.

ChrisSportsFan

bigdog5142 wrote
I was wondering about the OOB call to put .07 seconds back on the clock. The ball isn't considert OOB until the ball TOUCHES something OOB, not when it crosses the OOB line, right? So...how could ANY time be put back on the clock in that situation?

The clock became dead when the UCLA player punched the ball. I was only watching the ESPN reruns, but I think that's what they went to the monitor to figure out what the time was when the punch occured.

BillyMac

I would like to see more opinions on the correctable error part of this discussion:

NFHS: Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in:
a. Failure to award a merited free throw.
b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.
c. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw.
d. Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket.
e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

If this had been a NFHS game, could the officials, within the time frame of a correctable error, stop the game, discuss the possibility that the over-the-backboard rule may have been inadvertently set aside on the play, and decide to count, or cancel the score? Isn't that what 2-10 is for?

If an official erroneously counts a basket during a player control foul, and the scorekeeper adds two points to the team's total score, can't an official correct the error during the correctable error time frame, and cancel the score?

Here's one we might see a couple times a season: Two man game, three point shot is taken from foul line extended, on lead's side, possible "dual coverage" area, one official signals three attempt, and three score, the other official doesn't signal anything, scorekeeper adds three points to the team total, one official decides to discuss the play with partner, blows the whistle after the throwin after the made field goal to discuss, time limit for correctable error hasn't expired, officials decide that the shooter did step on the line. Can't the officials correct the erroneously counted score by canceling the extra point?

In my opinion, all three of these situations involve correctable errors, that can be corrected in the prescribed time frame. These are not bookkeeping errors, or mistakes, that can be corrected up until the officials' jurisdiction ends. Nor are these errors, or mistakes, that do not fall under Rule 2-10, and cannot be corrected.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, just be sure to correct me no later than during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started.

Jurassic Referee

BillyMac wrote
I would like to see more opinions on the correctable error part of this discussion:

Gee, are you saying that we should be able to let the play go back and forth as long as the ball doesn't become dead.....maybe for 5-6 different possessions.....and at the first dead ball we can then get together and say "Hey, I think that we missed a goaltending call. Let's count the basket now."

My opinion?

Silly monkeys......

Dan_ref

http://ballhype.com/video/crazy_ucla_cal_finish/

Camron Rust

blindzebra wrote
The casebook uses the words passes directly over.

To me directly is intended to mean directly from the front to the back or directly from the back to the front and not over the corner.

I have a difficult time believing that shot passed DIRECTLY over the backboard, because it didn't.

I'd bet that had that shot not had enough air under it it would have struck the side of the backboard and not the back, and for it to fit the directly over stipulation it would need to strike the back.

Imagine the backboard extended out the top to the ceiling...any spot on that extended backboard is directly over the backboard. If the ball passes through that extended backboard in any direction, it has passed over the backboard. The only question that is unanswered is how much of the ball? Any part? The center? The whole thing?

Me? I'm not calling it if it is just the edge of the ball....but will call it if it is the center but a little of the ball is still outside the plane of the backboard.

BillyMac

Jurassic Referee wrote
Are you saying that we should be able to let the play go back and forth as long as the ball doesn't become dead, maybe for 5-6 different possessions, and at the first dead ball we can then get together and say "Hey, I think that we missed a ........ call. Let's ......... the basket now."

Jurassic Referee: Good point. Forget about the goaltending call for now. I'm not ignoring it, I will get back to it shortly. I took the liberty of editing your post to reflect that.

Doesn't Rule 2-10 allow us to do exactly what you (edited) stated, once the officials are 100% sure that they are dealing with a correctable error? Let's look at a different example, let's say the example I gave of the three point shot that is later decided by the officials to be only a two point shot, with a few alterations, for sake of argument. At the time of the shot Team A is tied with Team B. The supposed three pointer puts Team A up by three points. The "play go(es) back and forth as long as the ball doesn't become dead, maybe for 5-6 different possessions, and at the first dead ball" one official, the one who thinks it was a two point shot, for the first time since the shot, decides to look at the scoreboard, sees that three points were added to Team A instead of the two he thought Team A should have received. Blows the whistle for a conference with his partner. Two Point Official: "Did you count that last basket as a two or three? I didn't see your signal before, or after, the attempt". Three Point Official: "I counted it as a three. I was 95% sure, but I got blocked out by the opponent right before the release of the ball. I'm sure that he was behind the arc a split second before the release. Did you get a better look?". Two Point Official: "Yes, I got a great look. Right before the release, the shooter just barely touched the line. I'm 100% sure. I guess that's why the coach is complaining." Three Point Official: "OK, I'll go along with you since you got a good, 100%, sure angle on the play. I'll go over to the table, invite the two coaches over, and I'll make sure that the last basket was recorded as a two pointer".

Could it happen, by rule, like this? I think that it could.

Now, the important question, the one that I wanted to revisit. Is the over-the backboard play, the player control foul counting the basket play, the two or three point play, or your goaltending play, covered by rule 2-10, specifically the part about erroneously counting or canceling a score?

Again, if, and it's a big if, these situations are intended to be covered by Rule 2-10, a large amount of time can pass between the error and the correction.

Bottom line for me:
Over the Backboard: Not sure if it's correctable.
Player Control Foul Basket Counted: Correctable Error.
Two Or Three Points: Correctable Error.
Goaltending: Not sure if it's corrrectable.

Looking forward to responses from Jurassic Referee, or from other Forum members.

BillyMac

Camron Rust wrote
I'm not calling it if it is just the edge of the ball, but will call it if it is the center but a little of the ball is still outside the plane of the backboard.

I got it all figured out:

Dan_ref

Billy,

Your goaltending sitch is correctable and is an AR under ncaa 2.11 (correctable error rule).

Larks

You Tube Versions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXTQRCt8Zu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfze65_u0c0

Mark Dexter

I think I may be changing my mind on this one, at least for NCAA. From the case book:

A.R. 25: Team A has the ball and is working for a shot. The shot-clock horn sounds and then A1 shoots and scores an apparent field goal. The shot-clock horn is not heard by the officials on the playing court. Play
continues with Team B inbounding the ball. With 20 seconds remaining
on the shot clock, the official calls traveling on B1. At that time,
the official timer calls the referee to the scorers’ table to explain that
the shot clock had sounded before A1 scored the field goal.

RULING: When, in the official’s judgment, the goal was erroneously counted
while the game clock was running, the goal shall be canceled. Since the clock
was running in this case, the official has until the second live ball after the
error to make the correction. The error shall be correctable until the ball is
put in play after the traveling call.
(Rule 2-12.3 and 2-12.1.e)

I guess, to the NCAA, this does count as erroneously counting a goal. It would be interesting to see it applied, though.

Brad

Texas Aggie wrote
The rule says "any direction." Your statement is false.

The rule is "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard
from any direction."

It is the "passes over" part that needs to be looked at. I don't think that you can say that the UCLA shot "passed over" the backboard necessarily. It was barely over the corner of the backboard.

I have never seen that called as an OOB and don't think it should be. The two D1 officials I discussed the play with last night did not think so either -- and one of them is on the Pac 10 roster (not in that game though).

Also, others are correct that this is not a reviewable play.

In my view, the officials got it right and the ESPN commentators are making a big deal out of something that they know nothing about.

Also, Doug Gottlieb is a complete douchebag for his comments about Dave Libbey last night.

That is all.

Adam

Brad wrote
Also, Doug Gottlieb is a complete douchebag for his comments about Dave Libbey last night.

Gottlieb was a douchebag before that comment, but he's not the douchebag of the universe, right Jurassic?

BillyMac

Brad wrote
The rule is "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction." It is the "passes over" part that needs to be looked at. I don't think that you can say that the UCLA shot "passed over" the backboard necessarily. It was barely over the corner of the backboard.

Your words: "over".
Your words: "corner of the backboard".

My questions: Is the corner of the backboard, part of the backboard? Is the corner of a piece of wood part of the piece of wood? My guess, yes it is, for both of my questions. By my logic, and your words, the ball passed over the backboard.

However, it certainly was a tough call, and, in my opinion, after watching the replay, it was as close to being a violation, as it was to being a legal basket.

« Previous Page Next Page »