NCAA Tourn - Thursday March 22 Video Requests
 

Here you go.

Peace

Gonzaga 1:59 to go in game. We are about to get a very bad call. Not sure what they are reviewing but if they are reviewing who hit the ball last, it won't make sense because the ball was never OOB. So what could possibly be the correct outcome?

Since my post and lengthy delay, they ruled IW (b/c player/ball was never OOB) and gave ball back to team who had control. Oddly, it happened at 1:59. Imagine how bad a call that would have been if it happened any time before the 2:00 mark.

More so, announcers added that they changed the A/P arrow b/c of the IW.

Ruled as an IW, ball returned to WV.

Inadvertent whistle. Give the ball back to WVA.

I didn't know this was a reviewable play in NCAA. I thought it had to be a deflection involving two or more players to go to the monitor.

They got it right. Inadvertent whistle, ball back to WV with 26 on shot clock.

BUT ... it took wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy toooooooooo loooooonnngggg to get it all sorted out. Probably five minutes of real time. Seems insane for something so cut and dried. The video evidence was conclusive and not worth more than two viewings, because it was clear the ball/player were never OOB. Allow 45 seconds to get the shot clock right, and we should be good ... right?

What were the other 3:30-4 minutes all about? Hopefully it was technical difficulties.

I'm hoping that's just announcers talking out of their a**es.

I'll rewind in a few minutes to see if the arrow was actually tinkered with. God I hope not!

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.

Is "inadvertent whistle" an option on OOB reviews?

I just went back and paused it at 52.9, arrow clearly points towards Gonzaga... Oops....

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

This crew mis-applied a rule. They should not advance to the Final Four.

I am thinking they were reviewing who was last to allegedly hit it OOB. Then, after reviewing the play and realizing the error, they elected to go to IW. Seems logical but yea, is it legal by rule? Again, can't imagine the outcry if it was done before the 2:00 mark. And, I was hoping there would be a held ball (nearly was too!) to see how the A/P was handled.

Here's the clip from Rule 11
 

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.

From the time the officials arrived at the table to begin the review, 6:15 elapsed before the ball was put back in play. Add in the time they discussed on-court before agreeing to take it to the monitor, and we can call it about a seven-minute delay for as clear cut a reviewable play as you'll ever see.

And sadly, the possession arrow was reversed in all this too! I don't know NCAAM rules, but is there any way the arrow has relevance here?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

+1000

Please do not post the entire 7 minutes. ;)

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.

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.

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

Rule change year
 

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??!!

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...

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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

I don't understand your rules predicament as I'm unclear how you got into such a situation. Could you please elaborate?

Why did your crew change the call from PC to block prior to using the monitor?

Seems to me that the way that the NCAA tourney crew handled this last weekend was perfect. The PC was reversed to a block only after consulting the monitor.

14:37 2nd half of Xavier-Arizona.

Pat Adams makes a good travel call when Bluiett drags pivot foot before defensive foul, Chris Mack throws papers on ground and doesn't get whacked.

Actually I think they were looking at the monitor for the exact same reason Johnny was, to get the number of the defender, as the calling official likely only had the offensive player's number. An RA call is not reviewable, but getting the correct number of an offender is.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Did he call a travel or a PC?
The Lead had a whistle on this play too and was indicating a foul with a closed fist.

He called a foul on the Xavier player according to the play-by-play.

Peace

Yup, looks like it was called a PC. Weird, on the replay they showed I thought Pat had an open palm.

The lead almost had a "Block" and it was close to a blarge.

Peace

I saw that too. He had both fists up ready to come down emphatically on his hips to sell it too.

The monitor cannot be used to determine whether or not a secondary defender established position inside/on the RA. C and T are responsible for helping the L out on block/charge plays in or near the RA in that if the L calls a PC, as I did, then the T or C can come in with definitive knowledge that the defender was not legal because of RA, the call is then changed. My partner provided me with information, he claimed it was definitive knowledge, so the call was changed based on his presentation. We were not allowed by rule to use the information provided by the monitor review to reverse the call a second time.

As another poster has pointed out, in the play you are referencing, it was the officials were most likely looking for the numbers of the players involved, not confirming the position of the secondary defender with regard to the RA. If they were doing the latter, they have no rules support to do so.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ZQUGmO8fow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

The offensive player trying to make a basketball move to the goal, defender moves into the cylinder space of the XU player. The play happens quickly as the T attempts to position adjust above the players but the drive happens at the same time. The L does not have a "competitive match up" in his primary area of coverage and "goes fishing "in the T's pond; ;) it ends up being a closed look with when the contact happens. Tough play.

To me, that is a standard cylinder play.

Thank you for the explanation. I did not know that. I thought that the NCAA tournament crew used the monitor to look at the defender's feet not his number.