SPU / Purdue 2:40

[Multiple Sports]

How does everyone feel about the administration of this play. Did SPU have possession when he was going out of bounds and three it back in play. If so and official blew the whistle was there player control, if not is it an inadvertent whistle and the crew must go to the arrow. I thought Steratore was right and Purdue was going to get the ball. Thoughts ???

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

How does everyone feel about the administration of this play. Did SPU have possession when he was going out of bounds and three it back in play. If so and official blew the whistle was there player control, if not is it an inadvertent whistle and the crew must go to the arrow. I thought Steratore was right and Purdue was going to get the ball. Thoughts ???

If this works the same way as NFHS, I have to disagree.
Once the officials determine that the SPU player saving the ball caught and threw it, establishing both player and team control, that team control continues until an opponent secures the ball. The inbounds Purdue player merely touches the ball, but is never able to control it before the official halts play due to the shot clock expiring.
My ruling is that this is an inadvertent whistle with SPU in team control, and therefore the ball is awarded to SPU for a throw-in under the POI rule.

I’ll also note:
If the officials were to deem that there was no player control by the SPU player attempting to save the ball from going out of bounds, then this is simply a shot clock violation and SPU gets the ball.

There is no possibility that Purdue could be awarded the ball in this scenario as it surrendered team control when shooting an air ball.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If this works the same way as NFHS, I have to disagree.
Once the officials determine that the SPU player saving the ball caught and threw it, establishing both player and team control, that team control continues until an opponent secures the ball. The inbounds Purdue player merely touches the ball, but is never able to control it before the official halts play due to the shot clock expiring.
My ruling is that this is an inadvertent whistle with SPU in team control, and therefore the ball is awarded to SPU for a throw-in under the POI rule.

I’ll also note:
If the officials were to deem that there was no player control by the SPU player attempting to save the ball from going out of bounds, then this is simply a shot clock violation and SPU gets the ball.

There is no possibility that Purdue could be awarded the ball in this scenario as it surrendered team control when shooting an air ball.

Great point. I hadn’t considered the team control aspect. In the moment, I don’t think Gene did, either, and when he said that, I stopped thinking about it.

Credit to the crew, they talked it out, took their time, and came to the correct conclusion, without concern over the “you’re affecting the game with this delay” pressure that I’m sure they were feeling.

Super important moment. Worth all the time they needed to get it right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Go to about the 1:30 mark of this video. I can't embed from my Android.

https://youtu.be/ud-YfvftovA

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

If we are talking about the save play, then the answer is to me that is not possession. I am not giving a timeout at that time or calling a BCV if they were in their front court if he threw the ball to the backcourt. I like the call.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If we are talking about the save play, then the answer is to me that is not possession. I am not giving a timeout at that time ...

Tough call.

Is he holding the ball? I think not.

One handed, possession? Sure, possible, but probably didn't happen in this play.

Tough call.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If we are talking about the save play, then the answer is to me that is not possession. I am not giving a timeout at that time or calling a BCV if they were in their front court if he threw the ball to the backcourt. I like the call.

Peace

I’m pretty sure they called possession, TC, and POI at IW.

If it was a shot clock violation as you suggest, they would have reset the game clock to 2:41 which is where it was when the shot clock expired. They did not and left it at 2:40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I’m pretty sure they called possession, TC ...

I believe that they did.

Like I said, tough call.

A little more control (cupping ball in hand and fingers), easy call, one hand holding, player control, and team control.

A little less control (just a few fingers tipping the ball, or flatter hand slapping the ball), easy call, no holding, no player control, and no team control.

Was he slapping, tipping, or tapping the ball back onto the court? One can slap, tip, or tap with intent and direction.

Was he ever holding the ball (player control is defined as holding or dribbling, nothing about controlling, one can control a tip, tap, or slap without holding the ball)?

As it is, no man's land, rock and a hard place, damned if you do, damned if you don't, six of one, half dozen of the other.

Judgment. It's why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Was he slapping, tipping, or tapping the ball back onto the court? One can slap, tip, or tap with intent and direction ...

Reminds me of ancient times, before a tip, or a tap, was considered to be a try for goal. Officials had to decide how much control (holding) was involved to decide between an in the act of shooting (try) foul, or a common foul.

Player could be fouled on a tip or tap that missed and get no free throws (before the bonus, his team gets the ball), or a one and one (no double bonus back then).

If I recall correctly, if a player was fouled before the ball was in flight after tipping or tapping, the ball became dead immediately and a basket could not be scored.

Maybe the best rule change ever.

Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Was he slapping, tipping, or tapping the ball back onto the court? One can slap, tip, or tap with intent and direction ...

Devil's Advocate: "Was he starting a dribble by slapping, tipping, or tapping the ball to the floor? If so, he has player control during a dribble".

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Like I said, tough call. Judgment. It's why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

[BillyMac]

If this player had touched an inbounds pass in this manner before "directing" it toward the basket with 0.3 seconds on the clock, followed by the ball entering the basket, would one count the basket?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Player could be fouled on a tip or tap that missed and get no free throws (before the bonus, his team gets the ball), or a one and one (no double bonus back then). If I recall correctly, if a player was fouled before the ball was in flight after tipping or tapping, the ball became dead immediately and a basket could not be scored.

Imagine a player fouled before the ball was in flight after tipping or tapping, the ball then enters the basket, officials wipe away the basket, and because it's not the bonus, no free throws, simply the ball for inbounding to the offended team.

Try explaining that to an irate coach. We did it. We had to do it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe the best rule change ever.

I got that right.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I’m pretty sure they called possession, TC, and POI at IW.

If it was a shot clock violation as you suggest, they would have reset the game clock to 2:41 which is where it was when the shot clock expired. They did not and left it at 2:40.

I am not so sure they called possession. They never changed change the clock as you said. The ball throw-in by St. Peters on the end line. The arrow was going towards Purdue and it never changed (well considering that St. Peters got the ball after the whistle). If they had ruled possession there and an inadvertent whistle, then they would have likely had to go to the arrow. So it seems by all accounts this was just a shot clock violation.

It never was explained in the broadcast.

Peace

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So it seems by all accounts this was just a shot clock violation.

It never was explained in the broadcast.

I believe it was a SC violation as well. The explanation to the broadcast crew explained that the game clock had a timing error and the game clock should have stopped when the shot clock hit zero (so why didn't they correct it?). The in-venue PA system announced that it was a SC violation, although I'm also a bit confused about them announcing the SC should be set at 29 seconds for SPU.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

The explanation to the broadcast crew explained that the game clock had a timing error and the game clock should have stopped when the shot clock hit zero (so why didn't they correct it?).

Quite frankly I think this was a cop-out to avoid a complicated lengthier explanation after an already-long delay.

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

The in-venue PA system announced that it was a SC violation, although I'm also a bit confused about them announcing the SC should be set at 29 seconds for SPU.

That’s because there had been possession and the IW came a second or so later.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If they had ruled possession there and an inadvertent whistle, then they would have likely had to go to the arrow.

Why would you go to the arrow for an IW when a team was in control?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk