SPU / Purdue 2:40

[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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

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.

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

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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.

[ilyazhito]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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

[ilyazhito]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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