The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Univ of New Mexico @ San Diego State: Throw In Violation (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100856-univ-new-mexico-san-diego-state-throw-violation.html)

dahoopref Tue Feb 09, 2016 03:44pm

Univ of New Mexico @ San Diego State: Throw In Violation
 
The following violation call (by Randy McCall) was ruled incorrect by the conference:

Mountain West Statement Regarding Play At The End of Regulation in New Mexico at San Diego State Men's Basketball Contest | MW News

Quote:

With 12.9 seconds remaining in regulation in this evening’s New Mexico at San Diego State game, the official covering the in-bounds play ruled the New Mexico player had not established out-of-bounds status before receiving the ball. The result was a turnover which gave the ball to San Diego State.

While this was a very close judgment call made at full speed, it has been determined after careful review of slow-motion video replays the call was in fact incorrect. The New Mexico player did get one foot down (two feet are not required) out-of-bounds before receiving the ball, thus establishing his location in accordance NCAA Basketball Playing Rules 4.23.1.a and 7.1.1. By rule, the officials were not permitted to go to the monitor during the game to review this play.

The Mountain West will have no further comment.
My fellow officials, what do you think? There have been discussions out here among our brethren about how the conference handled this.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kmQUgw0GMxk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

deecee Tue Feb 09, 2016 03:49pm

What's there to discuss, the video proves the call was incorrect. Move on.

Adam Tue Feb 09, 2016 03:50pm

I don't like public criticism of judgment calls.

JRutledge Tue Feb 09, 2016 03:51pm

I looks like the right foot is out of bounds and the left foot is in the air. So by rule this is legal. It seems like the official was splitting hairs.

Peace

dahoopref Tue Feb 09, 2016 03:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 980259)
I don't like public criticism of judgment calls.

This.

The play was so close in real time on a judgement call that a public statement from the conference was unexpected.

Adam Tue Feb 09, 2016 04:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 980262)
This.

The play was so close in real time on a judgement call that a public statement from the conference was unexpected.

The other perspective could be that the call is obviously wrong and the point of the release was not so much to acknowledge that as to note the difficulty of making that call in real time.

Quote:

While this was a very close judgment call made at full speed, it has been determined after careful review of slow-motion video replays

deecee Tue Feb 09, 2016 04:02pm

What's wrong with public criticism. This is a black or white call. Official got it wrong and it was admitted. Nothing can be done about it and the official shouldn't get punished, but the statement is correct. The play being close in real time or not doesn't change the fact that it's either right or wrong and consensus can be gained.

It's different with block/charge or contact fouls.

JRutledge Tue Feb 09, 2016 04:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 980266)
What's wrong with public criticism. This is a black or white call. Official got it wrong and it was admitted. Nothing can be done about it and the official shouldn't get punished, but the statement is correct. The play being close in real time or not doesn't change the fact that it's either right or wrong and consensus can be gained.

It's different with block/charge or contact fouls.

I believe he is talking about the conference saying something. I tend to agree with that opinion.

Peace

deecee Tue Feb 09, 2016 04:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 980273)
I believe he is talking about the conference saying something. I tend to agree with that opinion.

Peace

I don't see anything wrong with the conference admitting an incorrect call like this one. It's obvious it was the wrong call.

JRutledge Tue Feb 09, 2016 05:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 980274)
I don't see anything wrong with the conference admitting an incorrect call like this one. It's obvious it was the wrong call.

It is obvious if you slow it down. It was not obvious enough IMO to call because the call it will bring scrutiny. I bet almost no one would have said anything if he passed on this call in the first place. It would have to be more obvious to call IMO in such a critical moment.

Peace

ballgame99 Tue Feb 09, 2016 05:22pm

He acted like he thought this was a spot throw in. He didn't give the 'you have the endline' signal but was saying something to the inbounder when he handed him the ball.

Adam Tue Feb 09, 2016 05:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 980282)
He acted like he thought this was a spot throw in. He didn't give the 'you have the endline' signal but was saying something to the inbounder when he handed him the ball.

The signal he gave indicated to me he thought the player caught the ball with IB status and carried it OOB.

Camron Rust Tue Feb 09, 2016 08:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 980274)
I don't see anything wrong with the conference admitting an incorrect call like this one. It's obvious it was the wrong call.

Only on slow-motion.

If they're going to talk about close missed calls like that in a game, they'd have a dozen or more every game (many of them travels uncalled). I don't see the value in announcing this aside from education of what the rule itself should be, not so much that a judgement call was missed.

BryanV21 Tue Feb 09, 2016 08:20pm

If this happened in the first half, or any other time except for at the end of the game, the call would have been forgotten long ago. Being that it happened that late, the conference probably felt it had to say something about the controversy.

I doubt the official that made the call is losing sleep over it. We know we're not Gods, so I'm sure he does too.

JetMetFan Tue Feb 09, 2016 09:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 980281)
It is obvious if you slow it down. It was not obvious enough IMO to call because the call it will bring scrutiny. I bet almost no one would have said anything if he passed on this call in the first place. It would have to be more obvious to call IMO in such a critical moment.

Peace

Right. If the conference had to determine the call was wrong after "careful review of slow-motion replays" it's probably not the best idea to call out the crew in public. The two other situations discussed in the Forum this year (NCAAW Big Sky - fouls reset in OT and NCAAW D3 - T at the end of regulation for team celebrating on the court) didn't require slow-motion replays. Those situations were mishandled. This is a judgment play.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1