10 second count: San Diego State vs Utah
 

Just saw an inbounds with 26.2 in a 77-75 game (Utah lead and possession, baseline throw-in following a made basket).
After dribbling for nine seconds, Utah player throws the ball from the back court to the front court and the ball doesn't get touched (gain front court status) till 16.9, with a whistle for a foul to stop play simultaneously with the ball gaining front court status. However, the clock doesn't stopped till 15.6.
Help me understand why:
a. This is not a back court violation in NCAA Men's?
b. The officials don't clearly see that it was 26.2 and now 15.6?
c. This does not go to review to see: If the ball gained front court status in time or if the clock needed to be reset?

Why would it be a backcourt violation, according to you, the foul occurred at 16.9, which is less than 10 seconds.

They cannot use a potential backcourt violation as the reason to review the monitor.

Yes, they should have better clock awareness and make sure the correct time, 16.9, according to you gets put back on the clock.

a. In NCAA - women and men - when the shot-clock is not being used (i.e., when a possession begins with less than 30 seconds in a period) the official's visible count is what's used for the ten-second count. We're not supposed to use the clock as the official count, though we try to stay reasonably close.

b. See answer "a". Here's the case book play (it's the same play in both case books). Different scenario but the same theory:

c. This type of play can only be reviewed if the officials think the clock did not stop/start properly.

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.

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

Peace

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.

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.

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.