Syracuse v. Gonzaga (video request)
 

Wow! Interesting ending from an officiating stand-point. Doug Sirmons as C called Trevor Cooney OOB on the endline!!! on a steal that looked like it was going to lock up the game for Syracuse. Video replay showed Cooney was clearly inbounds but the play was not reviewable. Good reminder to stay in your primary especially in those game critical moments. If it happens to someone as good as Sirmons it can certainly happen to us.

Play happened with :11 seconds left in the game.

Good official but his season is over.

Not necessarily, but either way I don't see a reason to speculate on this.

10 second violation?
 

Very late in the game ( about 2 minutes remaining), Gonzaga was called for a 10 second violation. But there was a pass towards the front court. A Syracuse player who is in Gonzaga's front court, taps the ball back to a Gonzaga player. Shouldn't Gonzaga get a new 10 seconds?

I only saw the play in real time and it appeared to me as well that it was touched in the front court before the shot clock hit 20 and yes that would result in a new 10 second count if 'Cuse bats back into Zag's backcourt (see rule 9.9.1). It may have been a miss or perhaps the ball wasn't touched in the front court before the 10 count expired. Would love to see a replay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is your play (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nhLn2TZ4tFo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Here is the video to this play (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PKWuY_2ZSWk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Ed Hightower
 

He was doing his best Ed Hightower imitation. Ed might have even made that call as a Trail official.:eek:

Could this have had an alternate fix, if not, why not
 

On the incorrect out of bounds call. First reaction is why is C making this call.
Next, was, it cost Syracuse the ball, (as Gonzaga awarded ball on own baseline) instead of Cooney at the other end shooting free throws.
Could this error have been semi-fixed by lead coming across and indicating not out of bounds, and C's whistle was inadvertent, and awarding Syracuse the ball on Gonzaga's baseline- no free throws as inadvertent whistle was before foul on Cooney.

I thought the same thing as other officials I'm sure ... why is the C making an out of bounds call on the endline. As far as it not being in his primary ... the ball and players WERE in his primary in that corner. I believe the ball came off a rebound out to that corner so his eyes would be there. If you try to rationalize. .. The lead was just as far away maybe looking in the lane for rebound action (fouling on purpose stuff) or whatever. Tough angle and look for both officials to catch (and his foot was damn close) his foot on the line. Had to stop a closeup replay to be sure myself. So no one had a good look at it as it happened quickly. I mean if a tipped ball went out on the endline there I'm sure the lead would have stopped the clock and looked to the C for help.

I thought the same thing as other officials I'm sure ... why is the C making an out of bounds call on the endline. As far as it not being in his primary ... the ball and players WERE in his primary in that corner. I believe the ball came off a rebound out to that corner so his eyes would be there. If you try to rationalize. .. The lead was just as far away maybe looking in the lane for rebound action (fouling on purpose stuff) or whatever. Tough angle and look for both officials to catch (and his foot was damn close) his foot on the line. Had to stop a closeup replay to be sure myself. So no one had a good look at it as it happened quickly. I mean if a tipped ball went out on the endline there I'm sure the lead would have stopped the clock and looked to the C for help.

[QUOTE=rbruno;985281]I thought the same thing as other officials I'm sure ... why is the C making an out of bounds call on the endline. As far as it not being in his primary ... the ball and players WERE in his primary in that corner. I believe the ball came off a rebound out to that corner so his eyes would be there. If you try to rationalize. .. The lead was just as far away maybe looking in the lane for rebound action (fouling on purpose stuff) or whatever. Tough angle and look for both officials to catch (and his foot was damn close) his foot on the line. Had to stop a closeup replay to be sure myself. So no one had a good look at it as it happened quickly. I mean if a tipped ball went out on the endline there I'm sure the lead would have stopped the clock and looked to the C for help.[/

That's right. The play was in his primary and he had the matchup. I didn't see the lead's position on this but it appears he was opposite so likely much further away than the C at FTL extended. Keep in mind the court is 50 feet wide.

All that don't call my line BS is just that. Yes, stay in your primary 99% of the time, but occasionally your partner will miss a call and will thank you for grabbing it. The official was trying to get the play right and from his angle it did appear that Cooney was OOB.

Look at it from the other side...let's say Cooney's foot was touching the line and he didn't make the call despite looking directly at the matchup. If the lead has no whistle then you should make the call. When we make calls outside of our primary they should be without question - a foul or violation that everyone in the building can see. You give the primary a chance to call it and if he doesn't you have a cadence whistle (slightly delayed). That's the mistake the official made in this instance. He thought he had the play right but it was not definitive. The teaching point here is, as always, don't guess!

When that trap came near the division line, if the C steps back up towards the division line he may have saw it clearly. I'll remember in the future for myself if a play like this is happening. Referee the division line.

I agree that there is definitely a time to come out of your primary but this is definitely NOT one of them. The C called Cooney for stepping on the endline from above the FT line extended while relatively straightlined!! The C had to look through a defender and try to call a line that he's looking at from a 90* angle. Never a good idea. The L (new T), while admittedly farther away (he was middle of the lane) is looking right down the endline and can see this a whole lot better than the C. My question is why is the C looking down at the line?

My first thought when he blew the whistle (Syracuse fan btw) was utter shock, then I immediately said (out loud) he must have been way OOB if the C called it. I wonder how the L/T missed it? Then I saw the replay.

Either way this is NOT the call to trumpet the merits of coming out of your primary to make a call. As you say he, "tried to get the play right and from his angle it did appear that Cooney was OOB." This is exactly why it's not the C's call! He can't possibly know with any certainty if Cooney was OOB which is why it is particularly shocking that he blew the whistle when the L/T had a pretty good look at it.

If this play was missed who is going to get in trouble? The Lead, not the Center. The Center could not get an angle on this play. We have these situations happen to us all the time. ;)

Peace

I think you mean Trail. Lead was (properly) near or at the endline 45 feet away and while he can get a good look at the clock (because there's usually nothing else going on in his area), he has a horrible look at the division line.

Yep. Plus my point was that the C provides better help to the T on this play if he steps towards the division line instead of away from it.

Agreed, as it turned out. But, if the pass was deeper into the FC, and there was some issue, then we'd be criticizing the C for hanging around the division line.

Plays in the area between the T and the L, on the T's third of the court during transition are difficult calls.

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?

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.

If the pass was deeper into the frontcourt it's clear to everyone the ball gained FC status. The concern for me on this play is what's happening at the division line. The C had great positioning throughout the play until the moment the pass is released, then he stepped down away from the play, instead of up towards it.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

They use the clock. This cam up in the recent discussion we had on the shot clock. And, all the officials will communicate the new time to each other -- pointing at the clock, showing 10 fingers, mouting "new clock" or something.

Sure, the FC wouldn't have been an issue, but what if there was immediate decision to make on a travel, or on contact during a trap, or a block/charge play?

The immediate concern is the division line, especially with the pressure Syracuse was putting on at the division line and the back court. There needs to be a priority and a reason for it to be a priority. Those other things might happen. The pass went to the division from a back court trap, the action areas were the division line and the back court.

I'm just not a fan of officials moving away from the action that needs to be officiated right now. At the 17 second mark of the video that pass is clearly going to the division line. There is no reason to move further into the FC at that moment. Once the pass is caught, then move down.

If we r talking about the 10 second call, the T is right there looking at it. C is in good enough position also. Backcourt violations require more thought than others but T had good look. I couldn't watch the out of bounds video. The feet of the defender were clearly in FC.(on 10 second call) I think both T and C could see that. Think it was more a brain cramp on rule than positioning.

This.

You hear this concept mentioned often in terms of the new L racing down the floor just to avoid getting beat. This situation is analogous. Why be so focused on being in perfect position for a play that might happen when you can stay and officiate a play that is happening?

I am not so sure what the lead could have done in this situation. I think the C and T were on top of this play and kicked the play. I would think it would have been rather easy to know the ball was touched by a player in the FC and then comes back to the FC. Again, it was just a miss, not sure the lead could have known this for sure from his positioning even if he was not on the end line.

Peace

I was illustrating the concept of not bailing out for a future event. I used a different type of play as an example. I was not advocating that the L should have been more aware in this particular situation. In this case I meant the C.

OK, I see.

Peace

I absolutely agree. My point is that we should not be saddled with the antiquated notion that you can never make a call involving your partner's line and this is as good a time to bring it up as any. The collective goal of the crew is to make correct calls and if we make a call that involves our partner's primary or line we should not guess and be 100 percent sure of the call.

I always tell my partners in pregame to grab a call if they see I missed one. There's no such thing as a perfect game and the game is supposed to be about the players, not our egos. If a guy tells me he is not okay with me making a call in his primary if he misses one then I know that our collective performance on the game is going to suffer.

Your argument is absurd considering the official was 100% wrong in this case.

That is the problem, it "appeared" to be right. But he was totally wrong and the video showed it. He might have gotten away with that in the regular season, but not during this part of the season with more cameras and more scrutiny. That is why you leave it alone. Even if he thought it was right, you have to be more sure and he has a partner looking at the play directly. Trust him and if your partner is wrong, they will never blame you realistically because you do not have the angle.

Peace

Am I the only one who thought the video was inconclusive? Maybe I haven't seen the right video, but I just couldn't tell whether the call was right or wrong.

That said, I'd hate to reach like that on a play that wasn't clear.

You probably did not see the right video. It was rather clear that he did not step out of bounds and if he did, it was not something he could have even seen.

Peace

There was one angle that was absolutely clear he did not step out of bounds. You could see the color of the court between his shoe and the endline. They did look at the monitor and they had audio on him when he explained the play to someone courtside after the review stating by rule they were not allowed to change his call, so it had to be Gonzaga's ball. So he knew he got it wrong after he looked at the monitor.

I completely agree with your last statement.

When calling outside of your primary it cannot "appear", you have to see it clearly.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

That's right !!!! If we work together in May stay out of my POND !!!!!! Unless the supervisor walks in and you want to increase your schedule !!!!

The way I heard it put at a couple of camps last year - by the same clinician - was, "Be late, be right, be needed." That was a tough one on all three counts.

Ant Or Elephant ???
 

That's the mantra that we use here in my little corner of Connecticut.

High road for Few. Easier to do this far after the fact, but still...

Yeah, I'm pleased with his response. And he's right that the two high-profile errors in this game split, so there is that...

Little late for Gonzaga

Sucks, but Syracuse didn't score after the TO and Gonzaga had the same lead with less time.....and still lost :(

Syracuse didn't score off the 10-sec call. Gonzaga didn't score off of the C's out-of-bounds mistake. No impact whatever on outcomes (and I'm a GU grad). Just stinks that it's part of the storyline.

Just because the other team doesn't score on the ensuing possession does not mean there was no impact.

Agree. There really is no way to know if there was an impact or not.