Hightower, Burr, and Hillary went to the TV monitor with 2:52 remaining in the Georgetown @ Illinois game tonight for a shot clock violation.

Illinois attempted a try which fell just short of the ring and then the ball was batted by two players contesting for the ball. The ball appeared to just miss the ring again (not that it mattered here because this wasn't a try) and then was caught by an Illinois player who failed to release his try for goal prior to the shot clock horn sounding.

Burr waved off the basket. Hightower came over to him and after a short discussion the officials went and used the TV monitor. They ruled the ball did not hit the ring and the shot clock violation call stood.

I thought that this was not a reviewable play. It was my understanding that only near the end of the game (meaning with just a few seconds remaining) could the TV monitor be consulted for a shot clock violation. And then it would be to determine if the ball was released prior to the horn, not to judge whether or not the ball contacted the ring.

So NCAA folk here, what's the deal?

Rule 2-5. Officials Use of Replay/Television Equipment

Art. 1. Officials may use official courtside replay equipment, videotape or television monitoring that is located on a designated courtside table (i.e., within approximately 3 to 12 feet of the playing court), when such equipment is available only in situations as follows:

h. A determination, based on the judgment of the official, that the shot-clock operator failed to properly start, stop, set or reset the shot clock. The mistake shall be corrected in the shot-clock period in which it occurred.

Since they were checking whether the ball hit the ring or not (i.e. whether the shot-clock operator had failed to reset), this is a reviewable play. They could not use the monitor at this point to check whether the player had released the ball before the shot-clock horn sounded. That has to be an end-of-half situation. (See 2-5.2b and e, and 2-5.3.)

[Edited by Lotto on Dec 9th, 2005 at 05:11 AM]

I do appreciate your help, but I just don't buy your interpretation of that rule's wording.
Do you have an AR or NCAA bulletin with more detail.

It is still my strong opinion that it is improper to use the monitor to determine whether or not the ball hit the ring.
The officials on the court must decide that fact for themselves without the aid of the TV monitor. Once they decide that fact, they then can go to the monitor to determine if the operator failed to reset the shot clock and if so what time should be on it.

On this play there was nothing that the shot clock operator failed to do. Burr even called a violation on the play. So his judgment was that the operator acted properly. Hightower seemed to indicate by his actions that he believed the ball hit the ring on the try and that the operater acted improperly. They need to resolve this on the court without going and viewing a replay to see who was correct. Seeing which official is right is not the intent of that rule.

I am not going to get into the rules, but dont we think that sports is taking the tape review a little too much.

Here's my thought-

I know we want it right but at what expense. Review the shot clock, review thre pointers, then we will need to review OOB and then we will need to review all fouls. What does it do to the continuity of the game? It seems a little crazy that in a game playeed for 32-40 minutes that we get hung up on one play or call. Anyway my ranting for the day

I think what was being reviewed here was if the shot clock had been mistakenly reset when the ball did not ACTUALLY touch the rim.

Based on what?

Certainly not the wording of the rule as applied to your situation, if I understand it properly.

No, sir. The shot clock was never reset on the play. It expired and Jim Burr called a violation.

h. A determination, based on the judgment of the official, that the shot-clock operator failed to properly start, stop, set or reset the shot clock. The mistake shall be corrected in the shot-clock period in which it occurred.

I don't see anything in there about checking whether or not the ball hit the ring. All it says is that the monitor can be consulted if in the judgment of the official the shot-clock operator failed to do such and such. If the NCAA intended to permit review of trys hitting the ring, wouldn't they have simply said, "To determine if a try hit the ring."?

What does your conference assignor say this rule means?

Can you go check the video to determine whether or not a try hit the ring?

How else would the official make a determination that the shot-clock operator failed to properly reset the shot clock without checking whether or not the ball hit the ring?

I believe that the rule we are looking at was intended for the following plays:

1. B1 fouls A1 with 27 seconds on the shot clock. Team A is awarded a throw-in. The shot-clock operator fails to reset the clock. With 10 seconds left on the shot clock the coach of Team A brings this to the attention of the officials. Since the officials can't recall exactly when the foul occurred or if the shot clock was reset, they can go to the monitor to see if the operator failed to reset the clock.

2. With 4 seconds on the shot clock A1 trys for goal. The ball contacts the ring and A2 grabs the rebound. The shot clock is reset. He dribbles out to the corner and then shoots with 31 seconds on the shot clock. A2's try strikes the ring and A3 rebounds. However, the shot clock is not reset this time. Team A continues to run their offense until a time-out is taken with 2 seconds on the shot clock. Now the coach of Team A questions the officials on the correctness of the shot clock, claiming that he should have 6 or 7 seconds left. The officials can go check the monitor to see if the coach is correct.


In both cases the officials on the court must determine that the ball in fact did hit the ring by themselves without the monitor, they are only using the monitor to see if the clock was properly reset at those times.

I still don't believe that this rule was ever intended to allow the monitor to be used in the way Burr and Hightower used it in the Illinois/Georgetown game.

But I am a little fish, and they are big fish, so I could well be incorrect. I am merely attempting to learn the correct interpretation. Perhaps they broke new ground in that game. Perhaps they will be lauded for their use of the monitor. Perhaps they will be chastised. I don't know.

We're not discussing what type of fish we are.

We are discussing the rule.

Why are your plays valid reasons for checking the monitor while the given play is not?

Because in my plays the officials are checking to see if the shot clock was reset. They are not looking at the tape to decide whether or not the ball hit the ring.

The rule clearly says, "...the shot-clock operator failed to..."
That is what they need to be looking for. The tape is being consulted to reveal the actions of the shot-clock operator. Did he or did he not reset the clock.

In the play in the Georgetown/Illinois game there is no doubt at all that he did NOT reset the clock, since the horn sounded during the play. So why the need to go look at the tape?

They weren't looking at the tape for the right reason in my humble opinion. They were using the monitor to decide upon something else, namely whether or not the ball hit the ring.

That, sir, is why my two plays are valid reasons for checking the TV monitor and the Georgetown/Illinois play is not.

The rule states they can use the monitor to determine if the shot clock operator failed to properly reset the shot clock.

If the ball hits the rim on a try and the shot clock operator did not reset the shot clock then it is clear, even to a lawyer, that he failed to *properly* reset it. It should also be clear, even to a lawyer, that the only way to determine if the shot clock operator failed to properly reset the shot clock in this case is to determine if or if not the ball hit the rim.

No?

I recently worked a college game with a D1 official. (This was not a D1 game, sadly.) Before the game, we were talking about unusual situations and this official mentioned one that happened in his D1 game. One of the coaches wanted the officials to consult the monitor, but the officials weren't sure they were allowed to. After the game, the official called the conference Supervisor of Officials and the supervisor said basically, if the coach wants you to check the monitor, then check it. Get the play right. Might not be every supervisor's mentality, but at least in that conference, it seems like the officials would be directed to check the monitor in the shot clock sitch we're discussing.