[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

And the answers...(also available on NCAAW Central Hub)

In AR 18, you make a valid observation and I will make note of it for next year's case book. (I said it should be "illegal" substitution)

For AR 208, if by conferring with the table officials, the game officials are able to determine how much time elapsed from the throw-in being legally touched on the playing court to the stoppage of play by the official and that amount of time is greater than 10 seconds, then the violation is penalized and the game clock shall be set to the time that the violation occurred (had the game clock been running). If this game is being played with a courtside monitor, and the monitor review brings the officials to the same conclusion (a 10-second violation occurred), they will adjudicate it the same way: penalize the violation and put the correct time on the game clock relative to when the violation would have occurred had the clock been properly started. (I asked how is anyone supposed to figure out the elapsed time if the clocks didn't start)

Thanks for writing. Glad study groups are looking at things closely.

So with AR 208 the main word in there is the first "if." If it can be figured out then you adjudicate it. If you can't, you don't.

Thanks for asking. I still don't understand how the AR208 ruling is consistent with the other rulings in that section. For example, if the clock is at 29, properly starts, runs to 18 -- we just chalk it up to an official's error. Since we can determine that it was more than 10, why don't we reset with a violation, like we do in AR208?