Syracuse v. Gonzaga (video request)

[crosscountry55]

One thing I've noticed in studying this play is that, in the old days of a visible backcourt count, we might not have had a violation for two reasons:

1. T can focus on ball location while counting in his head, vice having to frequently peek at the shot clock, which was a contributing factor to the IC in this case.

2. The count probably would have been slightly slower, which may have permitted more time to get the ball across.

I like the new mechanic of using the shot clock for temporal accuracy. 10 seconds should be 10 seconds, not 13 seconds. But.....this is a drawback. Given that, C and L have to be prepared to help in these situations, and Ts must be prepared to receive information and change to IW from time to time.

By the way, never thought about this before, but what happens when a new 10-second count begins within the same shot clock interval (e.g. what should have happened in this case)? Does the official make a note of the shot clock time when he begins the new count, or in this case does he start a visual count?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

By the way, never thought about this before, but what happens when a new 10-second count begins within the same shot clock interval (e.g. what should have happened in this case)? Does the official make a note of the shot clock time when he begins the new count, or in this case does he start a visual count?

If everything works the way it should, one of the officials will get the new number in their head. Granted, they won't be able to communicate it but someone will/should know it. In all likelihood on a play similar to this one it would've been the C - assuming they had the no-call correct, of course. However, it's not out of the question that the L would have the new number since they really wouldn't have much to do other than watch two players who probably wouldn't be getting the ball.