Game clock doesn't stop just because the shot clock hits zero, so that doesn't make sense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I still think they ruled it a SC violation.

If it was ruled a possession by SPU on the end-line jump, then Purdue #2 regains possession, and the IW comes just as the SPU player stabs at the ball to knock it loose (before he secured possession).

I don't see how they make it SPU's ball unless they rule it a SC violation.

I didn't understand this part either, but it's what the officials told the media crew at 5:25 in the YouTube video, posted above. *shrug*

If it's possession by SPU and then an IW after Purdue #2 secured and was dribblng with the ball, then it should be Purdue's ball right?

If it's possession by SPU and then an IW after SPU stabbed at the ball to knock it loose, then it should be arrow, right?

If it's an SC violation by Purdue and ruled not possession, it should be SPU's ball on the violation, but I would assume SC gets reset to 30 and game clock gets reset to 2:41 when SC violation occured, right?

Did they rule possession by SPU, then possession by Purdue, then possession by SPU after stabbing the ball? Problem with this is that Purdue #2 stops pursuing the loose ball when he hears the whistle, resulting in SPU ending up with it.

Not challenging any of you, just trying to understand it myself. The net result didn't seem to make sense and I couldn't find any official explanations anywhere.

The shot clock should not be at 29 on a change of possession. The correct ruling would be to blow the whistle as soon as it is clear that Purdue will not attempt a shot before 0 (that could be with the shot clock at 0 with the ball rolling around).

If the whistle was blown, and the ruling was inadvertent whistle with no control, Purdue would get the ball on the AP arrow. However, they would lose the ball instantly due to the shot clock violation. This is the same as the team having the arrow, yet being awarded possession on a held ball with 20 seconds on the shot clock, where they are entitled to possession, but cannot legally gain possession because doing so would cause a 10-second violation.

If St. Peter's had controlled the ball, but then there was an indavertent whistle (unlikely), then, they would get the ball with whatever was on the shot clock. Since the shot clock was not reset, it would mean that in this scenario, the shot clock would go to 30.

If somehow Purdue had controlled the ball again when the inadvertent whistle had happened, they would get the shot clock reset to 30 seconds, because they possessed a live ball in the frontcourt after possession by the opponent.

However, in no scenario is the shot clock going to be at 29 to start a possession. As I see it, St. Peter's will get possession in almost any scenario with 30 seconds on the shot clock, due to the shot clock violation by Purdue.

The shot clock would be at 29 seconds if it was ruled that Saint Peter's saving the ball what's player control and therefore the start of a new possession. That would make the whistle an inadvertent whistle while St Peter's was still in team control.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

That's strange. I would have expected the officials to stop play when the shot clock hit zero and there was no player control or a shot in flight.

You need to watch the video from the 1:30 mark. There are variables to the play that you don't seem to be taking into account. You have to be ready to adjudicate unusual situations.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Words Of The Wise ...
 

Agree. 98% plus of the calls that we make during a season are "garden variety" calls, they (travel, block/charge, etc.) may be difficult, but it's usually "been there, done that".

We should, hopefully, also be able to "step up" "where the rubber meets the road" and correctly make those once in a season, once in a decade, or once in a career calls. That's why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

I agree with that, but there is a case to be made that Purdue had some control if that is what is ruled. The Purdue player bounces the ball like 3 times before the St. Peters player touches the ball and maybe even takes it away from him. So if that is possession on the save, why not possession on the Purdue taking the ball after the save?

Peace

That's what I was getting at above, less eloquently -- can anyone argue that Purdue didn't have possession when #2 dribbled it 3 times before the whistle is heard? So if it were ruled an SPU possession over the endline, then Purdue possession on the dribble, followed by IW prior to SPU gaining control, how do we restart with a 29 second SC and ball for SPU?

The whistle came just as the SPU player stabbed at the ball to knock it loose - he certainly didn't have control, and the Purdue player gave up pursuit based on the whistle...

Ah well, it won't really change the outcome - but I really didn't understand how it could end up where it did. Maybe best to let this dead horse be processed.

Here's a question for those in the know - does NCAA replay allow for broadcast audio to be heard so that the precise timing of the whistle could be determined? Or is it visual video only? Perhaps that's the reason? They assumed that the IW came before it actually did?

If St. Peter's had possession on the throw-back, and Purdue possessed the ball afterwards, then the shot clock would have to be reset to 30 seconds and a new possession given to Purdue. I can't see how St. Peter's gets possession with 29 seconds based on the sequence in the video.
If there is no team control on the bat by St. Peter's (or the whistle was blown earlier), then St. Peter's gets possession with a 30 second shot clock due to the shot clock violation by Purdue.

By the time we see the center official he's coming in with two hands up emphatically as if his initial whistle was not heard. I believe he blew his whistle off-camera where we can't see it as Purdue was first batting the ball after the save.

Of course, we can all speculate all day long until somebody actually talks to somebody on that crew.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Giant Dumpster Fire ...
 

I don't know a lot about college basketball officiating, but it appears that from the initial split-second catch, or non-catch, and throw/tip/tap/slap back, until the conclusion and announcement of the monitor review, everything in between (dribble, shot clock, team control, etc.) was just a giant dumpster fire.

I'm not fully blaming the officials, there were a lot of tough judgment calls that occurred in a very short period of time. Nothing was easy about this situation.

Watched a friend work a state semifinal a few weeks ago. At one point he was the trail in the back corner of the frontcourt, in front of and trapped against the table, with one partner all the way down on the end line, and the other partner all the way over on the other side of the court, with their own active matchups, so no real help (except for the two head coaches standing within a few feet of him). He had several decisions to go through on a play in that corner as one offensive player was trapped in the corner by two defensive players, and then the players went to the floor after the ball got loose the floor. What initially was almost a five second call (he was counting) became either an offensive team control foul, a defensive foul, out of bounds (on either team), backcourt, or a held ball, all while he had to listen for a coach (or coaches) requesting, and he possibly granting, a timeout. All this in a few seconds.

He came out with the strongest held ball call that I've ever seen.

It's not easy being a high school, or college, basketball official.

The closest analogy is to football wherein a wide receiver's "catch" is really not a catch unless he "controls the ball".

That makes sense. I'm not sure if anyone controlled the ball after the airball, so if I were on the court, I'd blow the play dead for the shot clock violation.

Which is what the Center official did, but I don't think he should have done it. The Lead and Trail had clear looks at the save and the Center should have deferred to their judgment as to whether or not the save constituted PC/TC for St. Peter's.