10 second count: San Diego State vs Utah

[Refhoop]

Just seemed like the logical: clock was 26.2 and now the clock says 15.9?
BTW: with my remote in-hand I had the "touch" at 16.9.
I'm more interested in why neither official said: the clock went from 26 to 15 and we had no violation... Crap, either my count was off or the clock didn't stop in time.
Q. If they go to the monitor to review clock stoppage... Is the ten second violation "not reviewable"?
My intent is not to be disparaging or negative, just seeking clarification.

[JRutledge]

You cannot use replay for that violation, it is that simple.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

Just seemed like the logical: clock was 26.2 and now the clock says 15.9?
BTW: with my remote in-hand I had the "touch" at 16.9.
I'm more interested in why neither official said: the clock went from 26 to 15 and we had no violation... Crap, either my count was off or the clock didn't stop in time.
Q. If they go to the monitor to review clock stoppage... Is the ten second violation "not reviewable"?
My intent is not to be disparaging or negative, just seeking clarification.

To follow up on Jeff's comment - as well as my previous post - the only way this can be reviewed is to correct a clock error. You can't go back and call the violation (if there is a violation). Think of it this way: If officials miss a travel - or another violation or a common foul - they can't go back and call it using video review. The same theory applies here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

Just seemed like the logical: clock was 26.2 and now the clock says 15.9?
BTW: with my remote in-hand I had the "touch" at 16.9.
I'm more interested in why neither official said: the clock went from 26 to 15 and we had no violation... Crap, either my count was off or the clock didn't stop in time.
Q. If they go to the monitor to review clock stoppage... Is the ten second violation "not reviewable"?
My intent is not to be disparaging or negative, just seeking clarification.

The clock went to 16.9 according to you, so that right there tells you why there was no 10-second violation.

You're only question should be is why didn't they put the 1 second back on the clock, not why wasn't there a violation.

Also, as already pointed out, once the shot clock gets turned off, a visible count is used, not the game clock for 10-second violations.

I saw the game, it was weird that there was a delay in the clock stopping because they were using PTS. Perhaps 15.9 was when their whistle went off. It probably would have been the best idea and review the exact time of the foul so everyone could be assured the foul happened inside the 10 second window but they were using PTS and probably thought it was pointless.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I saw the game, it was weird that there was a delay in the clock stopping because they were using PTS. Perhaps 15.9 was when their whistle went off. It probably would have been the best idea and review the exact time of the foul so everyone could be assured the foul happened inside the 10 second window but they were using PTS and probably thought it was pointless.

Nothing would have changed with the foul regardless of whether it was inside the 10-second window. The violation wasn't called. It's done.

Regarding PTS: It ain't foolproof. I had a chance to use it in a scrimmage earlier this month. The game clock operator told me he always starts/stops the clock at the console because in his building PTS has been known to be cranky. He's the backup so it makes sense the clock will start/stop a bit late.