jay bilas rule comment

[dblref]

Getting back to the original game in question (Niagra vs Providence), I noticed that one of the Providence players had white tape across the top of both ears. Not being a college official, I don't know if there are different rules regarding this. I assumed (I know), that it may have been covering ear studs. Anyone else notice this?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by dblref
Getting back to the original game in question (Niagra vs Providence), I noticed that one of the Providence players had white tape across the top of both ears. Not being a college official, I don't know if there are different rules regarding this. I assumed (I know), that it may have been covering ear studs. Anyone else notice this?

IF the tape was covering ear studs, the jewelry should have been removed.

[dblref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

IF the tape was covering ear studs, the jewelry should have been removed.

I watched it quite a while trying to see what it might be. Most ear studs and worn in the lobe (I think), but the tape was at the top of the ear. I have been told by my son that studs in the top of the ear are more painful than in the lobe. I told him why have them if they are painful in any part of the ear -- btw, he doesn't wear studs.

[carldog]

That "white tape" across the top of both ears were hearing aids.

[JRutledge]

I saw the hearing aids. I see no reason to not allow those.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
If his momentum took him OOB, then he's still allowed to come back and retrieve the ball.

Chuck, where did you get this from? I'm not disagreeing with you because I thought this was correct also. However, I was told different after my game on Saturday when I didn't call it. A player made a good steal and his momentum took him out of bounds. He hustled right back in and shot a layup. The observer was also the supervisor for this game. He also happens to be a ref, a ref that has been to the final four the last two years. So, I didn't argue at all. Maybe I thought this because at the NCAA clinic, in the rule book and other places the only thing I heard discussed in relation to this rule was concerning the double screen and the player going out of bounds to use the screen. Just curious to know if you have seen this in print from the NCAA.

As far as the comments to the coach, I don't think it should be encouraged. It seemed to work out in this situation but what about the coach that really turns it on after this is said. His/her main basis for continued banter could be "you started it." It could be tough to give a T after this. Also, we should think about in a tough game, with an evaluator within earshot would you say the same thing to a coach. Or, at a camp where you are trying to get hired would you say it. That might be extreme but habits and ways to deal with coaches are learned at every level and every game.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by tomegun

Chuck, where did you get this from?

Well, the new NCAA rule specifically says that it's illegal to go OOB of your "own volition". Since your momemtum is a matter of physics and not volition, I have to conclude that it's not prohibited by the rule. And since there's no other rule that prohibits being the first to touch the ball after being OOB, I have to conclude that it's legal.

Course, I've never been to the Final Four. . .

[dblref]

Originally posted by carldog
That "white tape" across the top of both ears were hearing aids.

That thought crossed my mind, but I guess I was thinking about them being behind the ear rather than on top.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Course, I've never been to the Final Four. . . [/B]

That doesn't make a difference to me. I guess I put that in the post to show that in my position I wasn't going to argue or debate. I didn't make the call because I agree with your logic and I still do. Now that I've looked up the definition of volition I agree with you even more. The definition is "The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision." So I'm sitting here thinking that it needs to be spelled out better or more examples should have been presented other than the double screen example. That example would fit the definition of "own volition." I'm a newbie in another conference that the supervisor/ref is in. If could become a delicate situation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by tomegun

That doesn't make a difference to me. I guess I put that in the post to show that in my position I wasn't going to argue or debate. I didn't make the call because I agree with your logic and I still do. Now that I've looked up the definition of volition I agree with you even more. The definition is "The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision." So I'm sitting here thinking that it needs to be spelled out better or more examples should have been presented other than the double screen example. That example would fit the definition of "own volition." I'm a newbie in another conference that the supervisor/ref is in. If could become a delicate situation. [/B]

When this NCAA change was announced I immediately said that it was vague and unclear. The wording makes it seem like what Jay Bilas said is right. (Can't be the first to touch after being OOB.) While I understand that the NCAA wanted to change the rule so that going OOB was penalized with only a violation instead of a T, as in NFHS play, I can't believe that they intended to negate good hustle plays.

I'll add that an experienced DII guy stated in his pregame in CA this weekend that there was a new rule making it a violation to go out of bounds and come back in and be the first to touch the ball. When I brought up the own volition language, he said that we would have to make a decision and if the player is forced out just make sure that we have a foul. This makes me think that even the conference rules interpreters are unclear on the scope of the new rule.