Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 1031629)

From what was described, UCF shot was missed (but "grazed" the rim), shot-clock buzzer goes off, play continued as UCF got the rebound and made put-back FG.

The crew stops the game to review if the previous attempt was a shot clock violation.

From what I know, a shot clock review can be done after the original FG is made; they have to stop the game immediately to check if the shot was released in time.

In this case, the original shot was missed but deemed to have hit the rim. The subsequent FG attempt (the 2nd shot) was made by UCF thus making the previous (alleged) shot clock violation non-reviewable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; thanks.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 1031631)

The way I read the rule, they couldn't review if it hit the rim anyway. I don't see anything in the rule that allows the officials to review if a shot hit the rim. Maybe I am missing something that is an interpretation of the rule that was sent out, but I don't see the wording of the rule allowing this review.

Originally Posted by Matt S. (Post 1031633)

The shot clock was reset by someone at the table - the officials never signaled to reset the clock. They correctly shut down the play for a monitor review to determine whether a timing error occurred.

Had the SC not been reset, they could've shut things down to review whether a SC violation occurred. You can review on a make, but not a miss.

They did it right.

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy (Post 1031609)

I wouldn't call the push nonexistent, but it was a terrible effort of the UCF player.

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 1031636)

From what I understood, the shotclock horn DID audibly sound so it was never reset. The crew believed the FG hit the rim and chose to ignore the horn so play resumed with UCF getting the offensive rebound with an immediate putback.

The crew stops the game for the monitor review for the "alleged" violation on the first FG attempt.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1031630)

I have seen quite a few of these as well and as the season went on they were making it clear that we do not call any "locked" arms a hook and hold. You have to be restricted and there was little to no restriction here. A foul maybe, but not a hook and hold.

Peace

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 1031645)

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 1031631)

The way I read the rule, they couldn't review if it hit the rim anyway. I don't see anything in the rule that allows the officials to review if a shot hit the rim. Maybe I am missing something that is an interpretation of the rule that was sent out, but I don't see the wording of the rule allowing this review.

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 1031645)

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy (Post 1031617)

IDK Rut, this looks like a pretty good example of a hook/hold to me. I've definitely seen similar plays called as such. The only difference being the player being held attempting to jump, which didn't happen here because the ball went to other side of the lane.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1031654)

All they could be reviewing was whether or not the original shot, that may or may not have grazed the rim, was released in time. They cannot review whether or not the ball hit the rim.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1031659)

These two plays are almost identical.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1031695)

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1031695)

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1031695)

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.