Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
I thought they did the right thing in both instances. In the shot clock play, Butler was to "retain" possession, but the officials noticed the shot clock was reset. They are allowed to go to the monitor to see if an error had occured (the reset). The monitor verified that there had indeed been a change of possession (Duke player had sole possession for a moment), and that the shot clock was properly reset.
|
If they came away from the monitor and put 23 on the shot clock then I could see it being okay to go to the monitor. However because they left it at 35 means that there was no "mistake". The shot clock operator properly reset the shot clock when he/she was supposed to. Now I suppose you could say that they came together and said "the player never had possession so lets go to the monitor and see how much time should be on the shot clock". Then they went to the monitor and saw that the player actually did have possession so the reset was correct and left alone.
I am trying to understand the rule so that I do it correct when I am on the court. This might actually be the proper protocol based on AR.35
"...since the officials are unable to determine if the shot clock was improperly reset they are permitted to use the monitor to make this determination...".
I guess this means that officials can go to the monitor at any point in the game to see if a player gained possession in order to determine if the shot clock should or should not have been reset. I'm not sure that this is what was intended when the rule was written, but maybe it was.
There was a play in the North Carolina/Rhode Island NIT game were the ball was batted toward the basket on a rebound and it hit the ring but IMO it was not a try so the shot clock should not have been reset. A shooting foul was called shortly after when they really shouldn't have had the chance to be shooting. An official on the court did recognize the situation at hand and discussed it with another official but they did not go to the monitor. At the time I was thinking oh well I guess they can't go to the monitor and that was a really difficult play. In hindsight I guess they absolutely should have gone to the monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
On the foul call, I believe the calling official was trailing the play, and was straight-lined from seeing the Duke defender. He properly called the foul, and because of the contact causing a player going to go hard to the floor, was then able to go to the monitor to see if a flagrant had occured. Once they review the play, they are allowed to "upgrade" the foul to an intentional or flagrant. One thing they cannot do is call a flagrant, for example, then review it and change (downgrade) it to a common foul. As much as I was rooting for Butler, I thought the officials got it right.
Good use of replay in both instances, especially in a high-profile, close game.
|
I think the rule should be rewritten so that officials are allowed to go to the monitor to see if a foul was flagrant OR intentional. Otherwise some officials will do it anyway for that purpose (under the guise of flagrant) and it will not be used consistently across the country.