BU v SIU tournament game...
 

did the NCAA official make the correct call on the last throw in play in the Bradley v SIU semi-final game? 3.2 second left, BU to inbound the ball, the SIU player who is OOB due to a missed lay up. the SIU player appears to accidentally contact the BU player who is now OOB and that contact make the BU player fall inbounds with the ball. the official blew it dead. gave out no fouls or delay of game warning. but, just gave the ball back to BU for a throw in. was that correct? as an official, i think i have a delay of game warning on SIU. your thoughts?

You say the bump appeared to be accidental. Sounds like it was correctly handled to me.

Why was there a player still OOB when the official is about to administer a throw-in? Or did the SIU player miss a lay-up and somebody made a tip-in?

here's a link to the actual video of the play in question...
 

http://members.cox.net/goshoxgo/SIUBU.wmv

let me know what you think, please!?

I think the official handled it perfectly.

I agree the official handled it correctly. But that was not an accident. A very shrewd move by Tatum.

Can you explain to me why? I've had 2 BU fans call me today about this. And they both said that by stopping the play, it gave SIU a HUGE advantage to stop a potential break. I think they might be right about that. And the video shows Tatum in my opinion, accidentally bump the BU player. And the reason I say "accidentally" is because Tatum has his arms straight up in the air...but, i was just wondering. I'm sure the BU coach wanted sometimes.

That's way I told my BU friends, I would have issued "Delay of game" warning. But, I don't work NCAA ball, so, that's why I posted the question and video link.

What violation did he commit that would warrant a delay of game warning?

I have no problem with the way this was handled.

Peace

good question...what about breaking the throw in plane? and if that not correct, why didn't the official charge the BU player with a throw in violation for stepping inbounds prior to releasing the ball on the throw in?

i just think that since the official blew his whistle, that something other than a "do over" should have happened. and i'm not sure what, but i'm trying to figure this out for learning purposes. if no delay of game, then certainly we have a throw in violation on the BU player. had the BU player, not ended up on the floor and "inbounds" but had stayed OOB, then I think you have a no call and no whistle. but, the official blow his whistle for something. why did he blow the whistle, what's the call???? "DO OVER"???!!!! what the heck it that...

We can blow our whistle for a do-over on throwins. If the thrower fumbles the ball when we bounce it to him, we tweet and start over. There's your precedent.

If the player was OOB trying to get back in, you can't call Delay of Game because he was legally OOB. Otherwise, you'd have coaches demanding the DoG warnings and technicals every time a shooter was still OOB following his shot if the other team gets it at their disposal quick enough.

The only other call you could possibly make would be an intentional foul for fouling a thrower on the throwin.

I totally agree this was not an accident. Tatum goes out of his way to do this. He goes OOB on one side of the lane and comes back in completely on the other side?

"Arms up" is meaningless, IMO. I see players with their arms up all the time while they walk into a shooter or ball handler.

I think this was the only common sense thing to do. The shooter is now out of bounds because he lost his balance and fell. He got up in a frenzy and ran back onto the floor, which he is allowed to do. I do not feel he did anything wrong according to the rule, he just ran into the thrower and the thrower ran into him. All he could really call is an intentional foul if you want to be very technical about the rule. But the player was not defending the thrower he was just running to a spot. If he attempted to block the pass I might think something should be called. That apparently did not happen, so I agree with the officials. Now the reason I think some of us say this is because this is not a common occurrence and there is nothing in the rules that supports your opinion directly. So the officials have leeway to decide what is fair and what is best.

Peace

This is not uncommon. I often see players make a layup, and then "circle around" and come back inbounds on the other side of the key.

Exactly. NFHS Rule 2-3. My favorite one in the whole book.

This was an intentional act. For me, I think this could fall under a similar case play at the end of a game. Interfering with the ball after a made basket is a delay of game warning. However, if done at the end of the game to stop the clock or to gain an advantage, it is an immediate T with no warning. I think a T for an unsporting act would be warranted.

This was an NCAA game, not a HS game. ;)

Peace

I realize that. I don't do NCAA games, so I was just citing the one I knew. Is there a similar rule in the NCAA book?

Actually the rule refenence is exactly the same. But this is not always the case.

Peace

hmm...
 

true we can blow a whistle for a "do over" on throw ins. but, the thrower didn't fumble the ball at all. he had possession of it. and i understand your point about the player being legally OOB.

certainly no easy answer other than the one that the official did. but, it certainly has made me think and i think made alot of us other officials think about it too.

thanks for everyone's input so far. i was just wondering what the correct call would be. and i'm still not sure a "do over" is the correct call. why not a throw in violation on the thrower for stepping into the court prior to releasing the ball on the throw in then???? i think i could justify that just as easily as you are justifying a "do over" call, don't you?

thoughts?

I know the play is different, I was only using the do-over as a precedent to show that blowing the whistle for a do-over isn't the crime you made it out to be previously. :)

Before you call this throwin violation, you would need to call the intentional foul on the defense (former shooter). If you're sure the player did it on purpose, then you could justify this call.

If you think the contact was incidental and did not cause the thrower to step inbounds, then you can make the violation call.

The only thing you can call from my estimation is an intentional foul. It does not fit the definition of a delay. The player was completely out of bounds trying to get back in bounds. The player did not reach across the line and disrupt the throw-in.

Peace

No violation. Technical foul. The player went sideways along the end line to make contact with the thrower instead of just returning straight back in-bounds like he was supposed to.

NCAA rule 10-3-18--"purposely delaying returning to the playing court after being legally out-of-bounds".

NCAA rule 10-3-21--"delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or preventing continuous play".

Your choice......

Wow, that is a stretch.

Peace

Why?

If you're going <b>sideways</b>, aren't you delaying returning? The player's momentum didn't take him sideways, for sure. He had to get up and run sideways.

And didn't he delay the game by stopping the ball from becoming live when he ran into the thrower?

I'm not saying that it <b>should</b> be called in this situation. I"m saying that it <b>could</b> be called.

That is a stretch. If you want to call that go right ahead.

Peace

Ridiculous application of the rule to this case. Not even worth discussing (but you knew that) This is the one that I was hoping no one would bring up. IMO if you judge the act to be intentional (I don't) then you have a good argument. But the way I saw that play A1 did nothing to go out of his way to make contact with B1. It just happened. Not saying it didn't benefit his team. Just saying I don't believe it was premeditated and intentional.

Dan, if you would replay that video a couple of times, study the offensive player. Look at the offensive player only.. Here's what I see, player falls to the ground, players eyes on playing court at all time, sees the ball about to be inbounded, player then darts up, side steps and throws his chest into B1. Damn, he even hesitated for a slight second before he threw his chest into the man. Then when the official blows his whistle, he still has his hands in the air with that dumba$$ "i didn't do it" look that we've all seen several times over our careers.

I've looked at about 10 times and I'm trying to give the player the benefit of the doubt, but the more I look at it, the more it looked intentional. It just didn't happen that way.

Joe, when I first looked at this I saw no intent at all. Not even a hint. But I looked at it again when someone else said it was done on purpose, and I agree it looked that way on replay. But at first viewing it looked innocent and I gotta give the benefit to the official on the floor who made the decision to do it over. He only got 1 view in real time in a real high pressure spot and I think he handled it perfectly.

You're absolutley right, and that's why you, me and probably 99% of us on here would've made the same call that was made.. :D

Looking at the play live-action there is no way to deduce that Tatum intentionally contacted the Bradley player. But watching the replay a few times I think it's quite clear what Tatum did was intentional. But we don't officiate via YouTube. On the spot, when it was time to make a decision, I believe the official made the most common sense choice.

It's funny, I sent the link to a 23 year-old friend of mine who is already a ref in a D1, a D2, and two D3 conferences. He grew up in Missouri with Tatum and my friend sent back an email saying it's old playground trick he taught Tatum back in elementary school...LOL

What's interesting is that b/c of the whistle, in NCAA-Men's ball SIU could have brought defensive subs in but in NCAA-Women's ball no subs would have been allowed.

Part of our job as officials is to call what obvious to everyone watching and participating in the game. You are trying to now read minds as to why a player is doing what they are doing. You also have shown no interpretation that this is the only way to go. You even have to explain why you feel this was the wrong call in great detail. Do not be a rulebook official where you find one line in a rulebook to make a decision that is at best questionable.

Peace

My argument isn't what the call was, it is that people insist that poor little Tatum just happened to bump into the Thrower on his way back to the playing court. I've also stated that I agree with the call made. Since, I have current access to the video, and I've replayed it several times, I've formed my opinion on young Mr. Tatum's intent.

As Dan said, the official did not have the benefit of several replays or the angle in which that we have. The official was standing right there and had one chance to get the call. I do not buy that is "had to be intentional" because I think the player was just trying to get onto the court. For all we know he might have been running to a spot on the court where he was supposed to be or towards a player he was guarding. I think you can also find what you want in the replay. Now that is not how we officiate in the real world. We call what we see and what is obvious. Calling something based on a very obscure situation we read in the rulebook is not good officiating. The fact that we are having this debate shows how much of a judgment call this is and what you might see as clear is not so clear to even more people.

Peace

Rut, I agree!!! Well done!!! And well said!!!

JRut... I think I posted this to Dan earlier... Get off nutz...

That should read MY NUTZ!

:D <i></i>

Not Sure This Helps, But ...
 

NFHS Rules: Offensive player is preparing to inbound the ball. Defensive player crosses the boundary and fouls the inbounder. The call, in this specific case, would be an intentional foul, and a warning that counts toward the four delay situations.

The only thing different about this play is that the defender is already legally out of bounds. My best guess: Intentional foul. I could live with this call, but I'm not sure that the NFHS Rule Book would back me up 100%.

I would have to judge it this way, if the play had occurred inbounds would I have called a foul or a travel?

If I say foul, then this is an intentional personal foul.
If I say travel, then I handle it as the official did in the game.

NFHS rule 10-3-6(a) would back you if you called a "T". It's that or a re-set imo.