Tip with .2 seconds waved off

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rufus

All that being said, why are all three officials making a call in this case? Shouldn't it just be one?

It should if the only issue is whether the shot is off. I have no problem with another official making a ruling if they clearly see a catch and shoot. But that needs to be discussed, which it appears they did. But I would not be ruling on this without definite knowledge of this play. The lead honestly is the last person in this kind of play to be doing so.

There was a play at the college level some years ago where a full court pass resulted in a last-second shot and the new lead waived off the shot on a clear catch and shoot. There was even a video posted here. I am going to see if I can find the play and post it. That was a great example of making a clear ruling and not being the official making the last-second shot determination.

Peace

[SC Official]

I always cover last-second shots in my pregame.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I always cover last-second shots in my pregame.

I know what you are doing here, but I think you should if for no other reason to know what philosophies your partner thinks. And one of the things I always discuss, for the most part, is if we give up the responsibility from the T or C, then we need to discuss if he can to make that clear what we are doing in that shot. Like a full-court pass or a shot in the corner.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know what you are doing here, but I think you should if for no other reason to know what philosophies your partner thinks. And one of the things I always discuss, for the most part, is if we give up the responsibility from the T or C, then we need to discuss if he can to make that clear what we are doing in that shot. Like a full-court pass or a shot in the corner.

Peace

Yep. I add that "everyone should have an opinion" -- (almost) nothing that happens away from the ball will matter here.

[Camron Rust]

It is almost as if they decided that a player couldn't "score" with 0.3 or less instead of couldn't catch and shoot. Or decided that it would have to be a tip at the basket only.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is almost as if they decided that a player couldn't "score" with 0.3 or less instead of couldn't catch and shoot. Or decided that it would have to be a tip at the basket only.

Speculating, but if they had previously decided that a player could not score and/or not to count any tip way from the basket, maybe they were mostly looking only for fouls in the last 0.2 seconds? No fouls? Game over?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Speculating, but if they had previously decided that a player could not score and/or not to count any tip way from the basket, maybe they were mostly looking only for fouls in the last 0.2 seconds? No fouls? Game over?

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

I think they were under the mistaken notion, perhaps solidified in a timeout prior to the play, that if it was a tap it had to be a one-handed tap, that a two-handed tap would not count. That seemed to be the demonstrative signal the official several times gave when communicating to the table after the ruling. For all three to come out so immediately and unanimously canceling the score, they must have all been on the exact same page, for sure. Though it may have been in the wrong chapter.
Speculating? Yes. Just my guess.

[Freddy]

Regular Forum contributor Rich is up kinda in that area. Rich, any inside info you can get from anybody in direct contact with the crew? Not in order to be critical, only analytical. I'd really like to know what they all based their mutual ruling on. As an opportunity for learning and teaching, not for purposes of piling on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

Maybe they thought that it was a “controlled tap.” 😁

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Maybe they thought that it was a “controlled tap.”

All three of them at the same exact time?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... previously decided that a player could not score ...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

I speculated that they did exactly as you said (previously agreed it couldn't count) and were possibly only looking for fouls.

[rbruno]

As was said ... in slow motion easy call for tap and made hoop. In real time this is more dicey I believe. Also its 0.2 seconds for crying out loud. We can't count that and maybe the clock "started" late. Again not to blame a clock operator or the mechanism itself. It takes a split second for anyone operating the clock to press and then for the "machine" to activate. This is spit seconds at that. Always felt that no one can even tap in 0.2 seconds... just my 2 cents.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by rbruno

As was said ... in slow motion easy call for tap and made hoop. In real time this is more dicey I believe. Also its 0.2 seconds for crying out loud. We can't count that and maybe the clock "started" late. Again not to blame a clock operator or the mechanism itself. It takes a split second for anyone operating the clock to press and then for the "machine" to activate. This is spit seconds at that. Always felt that no one can even tap in 0.2 seconds... just my 2 cents.

Of course you can. The ball just can't settle at all in your hand as you do so.

[Freddy]

Looks like they got one right here locally last week . . .
Twitter Clip with .2 Seconds Left