Univ of New Mexico @ San Diego State: Throw In Violation

[dahoopref]

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

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.

[deecee]

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

[Adam]

I don't like public criticism of judgment calls.

[JRutledge]

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]

Originally Posted by Adam

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]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deecee

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by deecee

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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]

Originally Posted by deecee

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.