Question about O-O-B call in Tenn-Stanford game

[Jimgolf]

If there are any Women's NCAA refs who saw the end of the Tenn-Stanford regional final last night, I'd like their opinion of the out of bounds call that prededed the game winning basket by Tasha Butts. When I saw it live, it looked like the player from behind hit it out. I thought the replay was inconclusive, although the announcers said it was a good call (there's a first). The replay looked to me like both players touched the ball simultaneously, but I know refs don't have the luxury of reviewing replays.

It looked like the Stanford player was pulling the ball toward her, and the Tenn player was hitting it toward OOB. Physics would seem to indicate that the Tenn player caused it to go OOB, since the ball went out in the direction she hit the ball, but maybe it glanced off the Stanford player and I missed it. I didn't see the ref give the brush off signal that refs usually use to indicate a bang-bang play (sorry if the terminology is incorrect). I'm curious how refs at this level decide a call that is this close.

I know that you cannot be looking at everything at once, and on the rare occasions that I ref, it's usually a one-man game, so I don't even know who made that call ( I haven't seen the replay since the game, and I was watching the play, not the refs), but on a three man crew, how is a call like this made (assuming it is unclear who last touched the ball)? Do you call a jump and use alternating possession, do you figure that the player from behind must have caused it to go out, do you figure the front player fumbled the ball, do you confer with the other refs? Or is it always clear who last hit the ball and I need to get new glasses?

Thanks for your input. BTW, on the final shot by Nicole Powell, I thought that was a good no call, despite what Stanford is saying. If anything, Powell ran into the other player, so the foul would have been on her.

[ShadowStripes]

Don't work on the women's side but flipped over from the NIT game to watch the last 5 minutes of the UT-Stanford game. Thought the call was correct as it glanced off of Stanford at the last moment. Those "bang-bang" plays are ones that you just have to take your best shot. I tend to believe the very, very close ones are given back to the team that had posession as a general rule. Very rarely do you see a referee call for the alternating posession on these situations.

As for the last shot, it wasn't even close to a foul. The Tennessee players stood close and vertical to challenge the shot. If anything, Stanford should also understand that Tennessee's game winning shot with 1.7 to go could've been called a foul and 1, as the same player that missed the shot for Stanford at the end got away with a pretty solid contact on the Tennessee shooter on the other end. Either way, I thought both were good no calls.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
It looked like the Stanford player was pulling the ball toward her, and the Tenn player was hitting it toward OOB.

I have it on tape and it is the exact opposite of what you say. The Tennessee player has the inside position and is pulling the ball in, when the Stanford player comes from behind and to the side and slaps the ball toward the end line. This is what caused the ball to go OOB even if it technically was last touching the Tennessee player's hand.

There is also a HS rule which says exactly this. If I can find it in the book later, I'll edit this post to include it. I'm pretty sure that there is a similar provision in the NCAA rules.

Lastly, no foul on the last shot attempt.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

There is also a HS rule which says exactly this. If I can find it in the book later, I'll edit this post to include it. I'm pretty sure that there is a similar provision in the NCAA rules.

It's in the casebook - 7.2.1, and this explains quite a bit of odd looks I've gotten over the years.

My question is - how much of a "delay" is allowed between B1 slapping the ball and it going OOB? What if B1 slaps, it goes off of A1's thigh and OOB. Or if A1 is holding, B1 slaps, the ball grazes A1's hand and then goes OOB?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

It's in the casebook - 7.2.1, and this explains quite a bit of odd looks I've gotten over the years.

My question is - how much of a "delay" is allowed between B1 slapping the ball and it going OOB? What if B1 slaps, it goes off of A1's thigh and OOB. Or if A1 is holding, B1 slaps, the ball grazes A1's hand and then goes OOB?

Mark,
As I read the rule it only applies to hitting the ball out of someone's hands. If the ball hits another body part after that, then this interp of who caused the ball to go OOB no longer applies.
I also thought that there was something which specifically said something akin to, "Even if the ball is actually last touched by A1's hands." I'll keep looking for that wording.

[Jimgolf]

Thanks, Nevadaref. I'll make an appointment with the optometrist.

BTW, case 7.2.1 doesn't specify that the ball re-hits A1. It appears to me that the interpretation is there to clear up when the ball is hit out of the hands and there could be some question as to whether the ball hit off A1's fingers after B1 has batted the ball. It doesn't appear to include B1 hitting it off A1's body other than the hands. Rule 7-2-1 says "the ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it".

[Camron Rust]

Nevada, I'm afraid you're making this one up.

It doesn't matter how it got OOB, the last person to touch the ball before it goes OOB is the one who has violated.

If player A1, with the ball, has the ball knocked away by B1, all we need to know is who was last in contact with the ball.

Now to the physics...in nearly every case, the person (B1) that bats the ball (which is held by A1), in order to impart enough energy to the ball to knock it out, will not be able to retract their hand so quickly as to leave the ball still in contact with the hand of A1.

[Nevadaref]

Let's see April 1....
Maybe it was some cruel April Fool's joke!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Let's see April 1....
Maybe it was some cruel April Fool's joke!

Except that the posts were on March 31.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Except that the posts were on March 31.

Not per my computer . . .

You got the time zone settings right?