In today's Indiana-Minnesota game, the Gophers were ahead by about 20 points with 1:15 left in the 2nd half when the Gophers scored a basket. The last 2-3 minutes had been getting chippy. Indiana's Marco Killingsworth is inbounding the ball, steps over the line inbounds, steps back out of bounds again, and throws the ball in. An obvious violation. Ed Hightower however did not call the violation, instead "overlooking" it, and kept the clock running by not blowing the whistle for a meaningless violation.

While I'm sure there are some officials who say "a foul is a foul" and "a violation is a violation," I personally felt by not blowing this play dead, Hightower showed good game management skills.

Agreed. However in a close game call it.

Actually, I'm not sure it is a violation. How is this any different from standing inbounds with the ball for 3 counts and then jumping oob and inbounding at the last second? Okay, I know how it's different, but in terms of the rules, I'm not sure it's much different. I mean, if the foot is back out when he throws it, heck, I"m not sure I"d ever call it.

This is definitely a violation, 9.2.5, The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court. I agree in Trigger's sitch I would probably let it go but in most any other game situation this is an obvious call and should be made.

Rainmaker, I can't believe you would really never make this call. I would bet if you see it happen your natural instincts would take over and you'd blow your whistle without giving it a second thought.

Yea, probably so. I didn't say I wouldn't, I said I wasn't sure. I think it might depend on how fast the thrower pulled the foot back. You're right about the violation, although the wording of the rule might be interpreted differently from how the case book tells it.

I've been thinking about it since I posted that, and I expect I'd call it without thinking, as you say. I'm just thinking about the Indiana game, and how Indiana got blasted. Seems like a pretty good no-call in this sitch. As long as there's not an eval watching

Well, Ed Hightower is Ed Hightower and I'll never get his schedule, but I'm pretty sure that there was an edict handed down -- after a debacle in an NCAA tournament game -- about NOT overlooking this violation.

This is one that I'm torn about. I'd like to ignore it, but I think we're not supposed to.

What ever happend to " calling the obvious"????

I think this needs to be called regardles of the time and score.

Chuck is dead on. There was an NCAA bulletin a couple of seasons back which said that this was not a judgment call and must be called a violation whether or not there is defensive pressure.

It pretty much said what the NFHS case book play 9.2.5 says on this.

Therefore, I don't agree that Hightower used good game management in this case, all he did was fail to do what the NCAA has instructed him to do.

The reason we are all in this forum discussing these scenarios and NOT working games like IU-Minnesota is because we do not have the experience and judgement of Hightower and his fellow "big timers".

Yes, they do not always use proper mechanics. Yes, their positioning is not always the best. Yes, they reach out of their areas sometimes. HOWEVER, the players, coaches, and conference assignors LOVE their JUDGEMENT. That's why they get the schedules they do. Their judgement means that they'll make the right call at the right time nearly 100% of the time (they'll get some wrong - their only human).

Having said that, not every D1 official can get away with not making that call. IMO, I don't think you make that call in that situation.