SPU / Purdue 2:40

[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

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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?

[ilyazhito]

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.