Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

We call it pond hockey. No goals, just rocks on the ice. No goaltenders. No hard checking. Keep the puck on the ice. No pads, no helmets. Some had padded hockey gloves, others wore work gloves. I hated it when the puck slid over to the deeper part of the pond where the water wasn't frozen. Lost lots of pucks that way. Also hated it when one of my friends slid over to the deeper part of the pond where the water wasn't frozen. Lost lots of friends that way. Those heavy hockey skates make it hard to come up for air.

More on the issue at college level of inside player going up for rebound, has one hand in contact, outside player also goes up and hits player 1's hand while on ball and ball goes out of bounds. some of you said by rule in college this is out on inside guy, whose hand was hit, since it was on ball, and we have that exception. I don't think that is right, because in the rule book, it says it only applies where there is player control. there is no player control if a rebounder gets up and initially gets one hand on the ball, with opponent having his hand on inside player's hand and knocking it out of bounds. One hand on ball in this situation is not player control.

The NCAA language:

It shall be legal for a defender to accidentally hit the hand of a ballhandler when reaching to block or slap the ball when there is player control with
that player’s hand in contact with the ball and when that player is:
a. A dribbler;
b. Attempting a try for field goal; or
c. Holding the ball.

No player control? then contact not within this exception.

So it's either a foul or out on outside guy. I suppose technically under the rules some would say it's a foul, but I can't imagine that is the way anyone in D1 calls it. in any event, it's not out on the inside guy, and no one at the college level should be under the impression that is the right call, because there was no player control. High school might not have the player control language, I don't know. Of course if it doesn't, I imagine it is simple oversight.

On related note, watched game yesterday, don't know who, where late, might have been UK/Alabama? Yes it was. Bama ahead 3 maybe, has backcourt throwin, 30 seconds or so left, the Bama player receiving throw-in has arm hit by defender and ball goes out of bounds, call was off of Bama. On replay crystal clear it was a foul, technically off Bama but the ballhandler was fouled, ball still went to UK. Bama ended up winning, but could have lost due to that call.

I'm not saying the should expand the circumstances under which the review, but when they review, if they see a foul in the play being reviewed that is determinative, as here, they should be able to get it right. The announcer, Bilas I believe said as much.

Jay Bilas is an idiot. I have nothing of value to add to the conversation other than to say if you’re getting your rules knowledge or interpretations from him, you may find yourself labeled in the same camp as him.

Bilus wasn't saying they should expand the number of reviews, but when they did review, they might as well go ahead and get it right. Hard to argue with that.

Something Jay Bilas and those of the same mindset need to address to the coaches, ADs, and conference commissioners who write the rules. We only enforce the rules, and one of those rules is that replay cannot be used to assess non-flagrant fouls.

He wasn't commenting on the officiating, he was commenting on the fact they couldn't address a foul in the replay, and he was making a valid point.

Exactly.

The coaches never get any blame for these rules that they write that fans, commentators, and writers always complain about.

Then that statement needs to be made in the "Coaches/ADs/Commissioners" forum where somebody can do something about it. All I care about in this situation is did the officials properly use or not use the monitor.

As I recall, the NBA tweaked its rule because of a play like this in a game involving the Lakers. Late in a close game, ball was awarded to Lakers on an OOB call. Review showed (1) the ball was last touched by a Laker, and (2) there was a clear foul on the opponent. Only (1) was reviewable, so the call on the floor was reversed and the other team got the ball.