UCF/Duke

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

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.

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.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

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.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

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.

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

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

The left hand is in the middle of #15 back and it extends. This is a foul for displacement that was missed by the official. Yes, it was a bad effort by the UCF player which, in my opinion was why the foul was missed, Had he been attempting to hold his position on the play the push is obvious and UCF is shooting two with a chance to take a 3 point lead with seconds remaining.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

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.

You're right - the horn did sound. (I just downloaded and watched on Synergy). So I guess the question is, did they not hear the horn?

There's no exact case play for this - you can only correct a SC malfunction in the SC period in which it occurred... this is a tricky one!

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

OK. Saw many officials disagree on these all year. I had a similar play this year posted on Synergy and people felt the same kind of contact should not have been called that way. Again they did not look at it and there as not much indicator to make them look. So great that officials after the fact feel that way, I just don't. I would like to hear JD talk about this more than anyone as he has the ear of the NCAA Committee and the interpreters. Maybe this will be voiced or talked about in the future.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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

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.

These two plays are almost identical.

One is the Duke Play:



Same kind of look, but they called the foul on the grounded player:



Peace

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

That is how I read the rule as well, but from all indications, it appears the crew was in fact reviewing if the ball hit the rim.

When I was just watching the video of the play, as the ball is possibly touching the rim, there is still 1 second on the clock. That shot appears to have been released with 2 seconds on the shot clock. this should not have required a review. It clicks to zero as the ball is being tapped around by the players going for the rebound. I don't see how they could be reviewing anything other than if the ball touched the rim or not.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

These two plays are almost identical.

To me the Duke play is in fact a hook and hold. I hadn't even noticed this because of the push in the back. The more I see of this game the worse the officiating in this game appears, which is too bad because it was a great game.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Fascinating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I really wanna know how he came to that conclusion. Maybe I'll ask him this summer

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Harris is working right now -- Gonzaga/LSU.