Video Request: St. Johns at Seton Hall - Inadvertent Whistle

[dahoopref]

At the end of the game, SH has an inbound pass that was stolen/deflected by SJ. Official blows an inadvertent whistle and the ball is given back to SH for another throw-in. They make a 3-point game winning buzzer beater.

This play was described to me but I have not seen the situation in it's entirety. I would like to see what caused the inadvertent whistle and the adjudication process. Thanks.

[Nevadaref]

I saw it on SportsCenter last night. It is exactly as you write.

The rule was applied correctly, but it was a very unfortunate screw up by the Trail.

[JRutledge]

Here you go.



Peace

[bucky]

Clock appeared to have been started so unsure why text indicates it did not. Clock stopped at 3.5 so unsure why they put less on. Yes, unfortunate. Would have liked to understand what T's rational was for blowing whistle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

Clock appeared to have been started so unsure why text indicates it did not. Clock stopped at 3.5 so unsure why they put less on. Yes, unfortunate. Would have liked to understand what T's rational was for blowing whistle.

I think more than .4 should have come off the clock at the time he stopped he blew the whistle. But then again that is why I think he blew his whistle. But then again maybe should have let it play out a little more before stopping play. But again this is why I posted this the way that I did because it is an open question. I do not necessarily have the right answer for these situations. If you have done this long enough this will likely happen to you at some point where you flinch and blow the whistle when you probably should not have.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Clock management is important and all, but I think this is a case where hypersensitivity to it backfired. There was an unexpected deflection on the TI pass. Then about 0.2s elapsed at which point the clock was started (likely corresponding to human reaction time—“oh, hey, that was tipped!”).

To nitpick this without letting the sequence play out first was most unfortunate. I don’t think this was technically an officiating “mistake,” but you can argue it was ill-advised.

Awesomely teachable moment, above all else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dahoopref]

There was some talk who believe the T blew because he thought the SJ player was stepping out of bounds during the tip or it was anticipated that he would land on the sideline with the ball. Was there a replay shot that showed this?

Per the mechanics manual, the T should be chopping the clock (which he doesn't) and activating the PTS pack upon legal contact of the ball from a player. If the T chops, it would give us a better indication when he believed the clock should have started. The T then raises his hand to stop the clock during his whistle.

If I'm the T, there is no way I would be able to see if the clock started on the tipped ball that eventually goes toward the sideline. The tipped ball by the SJ player is an active match-up that would have my attention as the T and my sightline would not be toward the clock. I would hope the tableside C would look (be responsible) for a proper clock start. Just looking at the video, it does not appear to me that the T looks toward the backboard clock during his whistle.

If they ruled an inadvertent whistle after the tipped (loose) ball, they should have gone to the possession arrow to determine which team would get the ball. Does anyone know if SH had the possession arrow?

Thanks JRut for posting. This a great play for learning and discussion.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

If they ruled an inadvertent whistle after the tipped (loose) ball, they should have gone to the possession arrow to determine which team would get the ball. Does anyone know if SH had the possession arrow?

Umm. That’s not how it works. Question for you: who had team control at the time of the IW?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Umm. That’s not how it works. Question for you: who had team control at the time of the IW?

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

Agree. Should have gone AP. Maybe they did...Doesn’t look like it from clip but maybe there was more that isn’t shown...

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take a look at this thread.
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...whats-poi.html

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can also look at the POE in the back of the 2017/18 rule book. It is same there as in 14/15 book.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one.

According the NCAA Appendix V / Major Rule Differences Pg 116

Team Control Definition
NFHS: Team is in control when a player is in control, when a live ball is passed among teammates, during an interrupted dribble, when the ball is at the disposal of a throwerin.

NCAA: Men - Same as NFHS
Women - Same as NFHS

Loose Ball
NFHS: None

NCAA: Men - When a player holding/dribbling the ball fumbles, a defender bats/deflects the ball out of offensive player’s control or following a try being released.
Women - Same as NFHS

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You can also look at the POE in the back of the 2017/18 rule book. It is same there as in 14/15 book.

Got all that and understand it. We don’t count 3s, 10s, make court location determinations, yada yada yada, until player/team control inbounds. Other rules already exist to support all of these facets. The POE just interprets them in one place for those who still—some ten years after the 4-17 rule change—overthink this.

BUT!! The POE—which is just that and not an actual rule—mentions nothing about IW/POI situations during TIs before control is established inbounds. So with that, a plain reading of 4-12/13, as already argued, indicates that a team is in control during a TI after the pass is released and before player control is established inbounds. No gymnastics (to borrow the metaphor used last year) are needed to explain this. It’s right there in black and white in the rule book. There is no 4-12-3d that says “...the ball is released on a TI pass.” That’s all the NFHS would need to do to favor your interpretation, and yet in ten years they haven’t, and I believe that’s precisely because they don’t favor your interpretation.

I realize we didn’t resolve this last year and we’re not likely to this time around, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk