NCAA Tourn - Thursday March 22 Video Requests

[ODog]

Originally Posted by mtn335

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.

The Gonzaga player DID deflect the ball toward the endline, and the official just happened to (incorrectly) rule the WV player either bounced it OOB or stepped OOB. Is that initial deflection enough, perhaps, to put this under the review umbrella?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

They did not go to the arrow. They gave it to WV since WV was in team control.

Still, after reading Rule 11 in NCAA book, I'm not convinced this was a reviewable play. But, I could be wrong.

It seems to me that they went to the video for the out of bounds part, like thinking the Zags player might have touched the ball and then when they got there, they did not see the ball out of bounds.

BTW, I will post this later.

Peace

[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

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It seems to me that they went to the video for the out of bounds part, like thinking the Zags player might have touched the ball and then when they got there, they did not see the ball out of bounds.

BTW, I will post this later.

Peace

Please do not post the entire 7 minutes.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

Please do not post the entire 7 minutes.

Awwwww no!!!! I will probably post the play and a couple of replays and the explanation. Not really much to post overall anyway, there was nothing really that controversial.

Peace

[Matt S.]

I'm willing to bet my mortgage that there will be a change to Rule 11 in both the men's and women's books next season. Any takers??!!

[ODog]

Regardless of whether it was reviewable, can anyone explain how they managed to get the AP arrow involved?

[mtn335]

Originally Posted by ODog

Regardless of whether it was reviewable, can anyone explain how they managed to get the AP arrow involved?

Yeah, that's a tough one. If I'm reading the NCAA-M book right, IW with a team in control, the team takes it. Did team control end? I didn't think so...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

I'm willing to bet my mortgage that there will be a change to Rule 11 in both the men's and women's books next season. Any takers??!!

Yep, after this has happened in a Gonzaga game in each of the last two NCAA tournaments!

Put me in the category which says that the officials incorrectly adjudicated this situation by rule, but chose to make the correct call for the action which occurred on the court.

Must suck to go to the monitor in the final two minutes of a tied NCAA tournament game and discover that you had an inadvertent whistle.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ODog

Regardless of whether it was reviewable, can anyone explain how they managed to get the AP arrow involved?

The same way that officials screw up team control fouls when the ball is knocked loose. They don't consider the concept of team control properly.

Probably thought: loose ball, player attempting the save didn't gain control, player never touched OOB while in contact with the ball, need to use the arrow.

Incorrect thinking, of course, but seems plausible.

[johnny d]

There are lots of holes in the monitor rule. I had a game this season where as lead I called a player control foul on a drive in the lane. The C came in and told me he was 100% certain that the defender, a secondary defender, established with one foot on the RA line. I no longer had the number of the defender as I was going PC, and my partner didn't either. We changed the call to a block and indicated it was because the defender was in the RA. When the C and the referee went to the monitor to determine the number of the defender, they saw that the defender was not and had not been in the RA. Unfortunately, this aspect of the play is not reviewable and we were stuck calling a foul on a player that we knew with 100% certainty had not committed a foul.

It is a terrible position to be in and it sucks seeing that you got the play wrong on the monitor and the rules do not allow you to correct the mistake.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The same way that officials screw up team control fouls when the ball is knocked loose. They don't consider the concept of team control properly.

Probably thought: loose ball, player attempting the save didn't gain control, player never touched OOB while in contact with the ball, need to use the arrow.

Incorrect thinking, of course, but seems plausible.

FYI, no one from this crew moved on to work the Sweet 16 or Elite 8.