Interesting out of bounds play (Video)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think he made the call, the ball went out of bounds on the C's sideline. I think he was indicating he saw the player first.

Peace

Center made the call because lead had nothing. C must have felt it was too obvious to let go. The last replay shows the whistle is blown and Ball is on court. He wasn't making a sideline OB call. They were likely talking also about whether, as someone said, the shot clock should reset.

[RefAHallic]

This is really an odd play. Lead didn't think the ball was OOB. No whistle and He wasn't asking for help. It wasn't an OOB play where the ball ricochets off several people. Looking real speed I'm not so sure this play was sooo obvious that Center had to come in with a whistle.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Center made the call because lead had nothing. C must have felt it was too obvious to let go. The last replay shows the whistle is blown and Ball is on court. He wasn't making a sideline OB call. They were likely talking also about whether, as someone said, the shot clock should reset.

It wasn't that obvious to the L. Put yourself in his spot. The L is on the farside of the endline. The UNC player has the ball on the right side of his body thus the L has an obscured/closed look of the ball. The L would most likely be guessing if the ball was still in the UNC player's hand when the foot landed. My supervisor instructed he would rather not call a violation that actually did occur than to call a violation that did not occur.

The shotclock should reset if the UNC player threw the ball back on the court (establishing team control) and play continued. Since the crew ruled the UNC landed on the court with the ball, no reset should occur.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

It wasn't that obvious to the L. Put yourself in his spot. The L is on the farside of the endline. The UNC player has the ball on the right side of his body thus the L has an obscured/closed look of the ball. The L would most likely be guessing if the ball was still in the UNC player's hand when the foot landed. My supervisor instructed he would rather not call a violation that actually did occur than to call a violation that did not occur.



The shotclock should reset if the UNC player threw the ball back on the court (establishing team control) and play continued. Since the crew ruled the UNC landed on the court with the ball, no reset should occur.

Agree with part 1.

As to part 2, I wouldn't say he landed on the court with the ball. I would say the ball was in contact with him when he landed on the court. There wasn't enough for me to declare control at the instant the ball became dead. So I agree with no reset, but I would have worded your argument a little differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[twocentsworth]

#GotTheCallRight

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Agree with part 1.

As to part 2, I wouldn't say he landed on the court with the ball. I would say the ball was in contact with him when he landed on the court. There wasn't enough for me to declare control at the instant the ball became dead. So I agree with no reset, but I would have worded your argument a little differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's control and a reset in my game.


Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

The out of bounds call is correct. The C needed to help here.

The shot clock question is less clear. The player is juggling the ball. I don't believe that he ever caught it, so I would only rule that he was in contact with it and not reset the shot clock. Of course, I get to watch it ten times on video replay.

(The Lead's look at this play is similar to what he has on many block/charge crashes in the lane. I now think that officiating should rethink how we handle b/c plays in the paint. We need to recognize that sometimes the C has the best look.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I now think that officiating should rethink how we handle b/c plays in the paint. We need to recognize that sometimes the C has the best look.)

I strongly think it actually takes two angles to always properly judge some block/charge plays. Most of the time, one angle is sufficient. However, there is always some direction of defensive movement that can be very difficult to see form any one position....that direction being along the line if sight from the official to the defender.

If you're looking at a block/charge play from the side (as is often the case with the C) and the question is whether the defender made it into the path in time or whether the defender leaned outside of his/her vertical space, that can be best left to someone with a different and better view.

Regardless of the angle, if an official sees an action that makes it a block, it is a block,. However, not seeing an action that would make it a block doesn't necessarily meant it isn't.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

It wasn't that obvious to the L. Put yourself in his spot. The L is on the farside of the endline. The UNC player has the ball on the right side of his body thus the L has an obscured/closed look of the ball. The L would most likely be guessing if the ball was still in the UNC player's hand when the foot landed. My supervisor instructed he would rather not call a violation that actually did occur than to call a violation that did not occur.

The shotclock should reset if the UNC player threw the ball back on the court (establishing team control) and play continued. Since the crew ruled the UNC landed on the court with the ball, no reset should occur.

I said "the C must have felt it was too obvious." I didn't say it was or should have been obvious to the L or anyone else. C is looking right at it. It may very well have been a "you can't do that" reaction from the C. Reflex call.

As far as the shot clock---if the UNC player possessed the ball before his foot hit out of bounds the clock should reset. I don't really think he did.