NCAA Tourn - Thursday March 22 Video Requests

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by mtn335

This isn't reviewable. It happened last year in Gonzaga's Sweet 16 game also, and the officials (correctly) ruled this wasn't covered. You can't reverse when they call an OOB without a deflection, but it wasn't actually OOB.

This is from NCAA-M Rule 11 and is the only mention of out-of-bounds in that rule.

Looking at the play, you might be right, however, I'm going to attempt to make a case that the review was legal (Don't be too harsh on me...)

IF the officials thought live that B1 reached through, rather than having his hand on A1's back, AND the ruling official was calling the OB when the ball hit the floor somewhat near the line, THEN I think its legal. Quite a few hoops to jump through, but that could justify it.

[mtn335]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Looking at the play, you might be right, however, I'm going to attempt to make a case that the review was legal (Don't be too harsh on me...)

IF the officials thought live that B1 reached through, rather than having his hand on A1's back, AND the ruling official was calling the OB when the ball hit the floor somewhat near the line, THEN I think its legal. Quite a few hoops to jump through, but that could justify it.

If they ruled that Melson or Perkins (forget which of them it was) touched the ball, then I can maybe buy that. The officials clearly said they called it an inadvertent whistle because there was no out of bounds, not that the other player touched it last. I just don't think that they can do that. Hoping we get a clarification from Collins.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Looking at the play, you might be right, however, I'm going to attempt to make a case that the review was legal (Don't be too harsh on me...)

IF the officials thought live that B1 reached through, rather than having his hand on A1's back, AND the ruling official was calling the OB when the ball hit the floor somewhat near the line, THEN I think its legal. Quite a few hoops to jump through, but that could justify it.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason this took so long is because the crew was trying to figure out exactly this. Here's how it might have went down:

"We're here, at the monitor, so let's make sure we're allowed to be here in the first place, and then since we are, the fact that the whistle turned out to be inadvertent makes that discovery the fruit of the poisonous tree, so can we actually change the call or do we have to go with the OOB even though everyone in the building knows that's not the correct call?"

Pause while we all stare at each other.

"Crap." Sigh. "Let's do the right thing even though it might not be correct by rule, and after the game we'll cancel our hotel reservations in Phoenix."

...Or words to that effect.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

i wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason this took so long is because the crew was trying to figure out exactly this. Here's how it might have went down:

"we're here, at the monitor, so let's make sure we're allowed to be here in the first place, and then since we are, the fact that the whistle turned out to be inadvertent makes that discovery the fruit of the poisonous tree, so can we actually change the call or do we have to go with the oob even though everyone in the building knows that's not the correct call?"

pause while we all stare at each other.

"crap." sigh. "let's do the right thing even though it might not be correct by rule, and after the game we'll cancel our hotel reservations in phoenix."

...or words to that effect.

+1000

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by mtn335

If they ruled that Melson or Perkins (forget which of them it was) touched the ball, then I can maybe buy that. The officials clearly said they called it an inadvertent whistle because there was no out of bounds, not that the other player touched it last. I just don't think that they can do that. Hoping we get a clarification from Collins.

Ahhh, I see. So you're saying that the outcome of the review by rule either needs to be OOB-White ball, or OOB-Blue ball, neither of which is Inadvertent whistle, which of course is what they went with. Makes sense.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason this took so long is because the crew was trying to figure out exactly this. Here's how it might have went down:

"We're here, at the monitor, so let's make sure we're allowed to be here in the first place, and then since we are, the fact that the whistle turned out to be inadvertent makes that discovery the fruit of the poisonous tree, so can we actually change the call or do we have to go with the OOB even though everyone in the building knows that's not the correct call?"

Pause while we all stare at each other.

"Crap." Sigh. "Let's do the right thing even though it might not be correct by rule, and after the game we'll cancel our hotel reservations in Phoenix."

...Or words to that effect.

Ha, you know what, I bet you're absolutely right, they probably realized they were in a bind, and tried to figure out what to do. I'm guessing they did not give that info to the coaches though (Mark Few would've probably thrown a fit knowing that it was his ball by rule) so now I wonder why they took so long to explain it to the coaches.

That's a tough spot to be in, I wish the replay rule had some sort of provision to be able to correct what was CLEARLY a wrong that had been done.