3.1 to 2.0?

[DC_Ref12]

message redacted

[ATXCoach]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

message redacted

huh?? Are you saying that you are not going to give me your response to my hypothetical?

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by ATXCoach

huh?? Are you saying that you are not going to give me your response to my hypothetical?

I started to try to, but it's 1:15 in the morning.

I'll try again after I get some sleep. You raise an interesting hypo, though.

[Adam]

This was a very simple play that required a very simple timing correction. The fact is, the ball wasn't saved and wouldn't have been reachable had someone tried. I've seen a lot of officials hit the whistle early on these plays. Since the clock didn't start, the officials have the opportunity to fix the clock to what it rightfully should have been had everything happened perfectly. Yes, that means they get to ignore the whistle in this case.

The official ruled an OOB violation, and even though he may have ruled it a bit early, that didn't matter in the end because of the timer's error. In the hypothetical, they would have had to stick with the erroneous violation because you can't correct violation calls by monitor. In that case, they would have had to go with the whistle.

Bottom line, this one wasn't that complicated, so we don't have to make it so.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

The whistle DOESN'T EXIST, within the context of the rules.

Ask yourself this question: within the context of that play, what was the function of the whistle?

Answer: To stop the clock.

Caveat: The clock never started.

Result: The whiste was inadvertent, since if the clock did not START, it cannot STOP (by way of the whistle).

This logic makes sense - sorry I if I'm slow to grasp that others are saying this has a rules-based foundation. If there is a basis in the rules for ignoring the whistle, then fine. It seems weak, especially if the situation is not dealt with directly in a case play. Are there case plays where the whistle/signal are explicitly taken out of consideration when reviewing the play?

[Jurassic Referee]

NCAA rule 2-5-1(f) says that the proper procedure is to make "A determination, based on the judgment of the official, that a timing mistake has occurred in either stopping or staring the clock".

The referee, Karl Hess, did exactly that. He's quoted in the NY Post this morning as saying "When you look at the monitor, the Memphis kid catches the ball, the ball hits the court and then went out of bounds. I put a stopwatch on it and comes out to 1.1 seconds."

That's exactly what has been said in this thread umpty-ump times to date. It's that simple. The R timed the interval from when the clock should have started, by rule, until the clock should have stopped, also by rule. The clock is supposed to start and the ball becomes live when the ball is legally touched or is touched by a player in-bounds on a throw-in. The clock is supposed to stop when a live ball then touches something out of bounds.

If somebody doesn't want to believe that, so be it.

[BoomerSooner]

I know I'm beating a dead horse (or at least a badly limping horse), but the only problem I still have with this is best explained through another hypothetical. With B face-guarding in the backcourt after a made basket, A1 passes to A2 at the middle of the FT line. B1 not seeing the ball tips it with his outstreached hand and it rolls all the way to other end of the court and goes OOB under A's basket. The C for some reason blows his whistle and raises an open hand only a moment after B1 contacts the ball.

Here is where I will put in different options to help me decipher how the original play should be handled. (A)The pass was thrown hard enough that no player from either team would have a chance at recovering the ball (I know this isn't likely given the ball has to bounce 3/4 of the court) or (B) both teams would have had a chance to play the ball but quit on the whistle or (C) A3 or B2 give chase to the ball. Given these scenarios occur in NCAA with a table-side monitor present how do we handle the timing under each of these clock situations (i) the clock does start on the contact with the ball by B1 and is stopped at the whistle, or (ii) the clock properly starts on the contact and stops when the ball goes OOB, or (iii) the clock never starts.

I know this is a bundle, there are some people already frustrated with this thread, and most will say none of these situations is equal to the original, but I'm trying to use a deductive strategy to foster some deep thought, because at the end of the day I was a philosophy major in college and as my wife tells me I like making things more difficult than needs be.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I know this is a bundle, there are some people already frustrated with this thread, and most will say none of these situations is equal to the original, but I'm trying to use a deductive strategy to foster some deep thought, because at the end of the day I was a philosophy major in college and as my wife tells me I like making things more difficult than needs be.

Don't know about you, but I've found my wife is usually right about these things.
The fact is, this situation wasn't your hypothetical.
BTW, I did address your hypothetical.

[BoomerSooner]

BTW, my answers to the various scenarios go as follows:

Ai - No timing error, continue with A's ball closest to the spot the ball was at when the whistle sounded (POI).
Aii - A timing error has occured, according to NCAA Rule 5.9.1c the clock is to be stopped when the official signals a violation. The courtside monitor should be used to determine when the clock should have been stopped according to this rule. The ball should be given to A at POI.
Aiii - A timing error has occured, the courtside monitor can be used to rectify the error based on when the clock should have started and should have stopped again based on Rule 5.9.1c. (this I feel is closest to the original situation). Ball to A at the POI.

B and C - I feel that how both teams reacted to the play is not relavent to how this situation should be handled and thus defer to my above answers for B and C situations.

We can talk about ignoring the whistle all day long, but the way I saw it was the T was certainly signaling a violation (OOB). As such the clock should properly be stopped at the point of the signal according to Rule 5.9.1c. I'm pretty sure this included a whistle since hand in the air and air in the whistle are like instinctual reactions for me and go hand in hand, as I'm sure is the case with most officials. It is important to remember Rule 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 when considering how to handle the signal and whistle. We cannot just ignore the whistle and signal because to do so would be to set aside 5.9.1c and rule 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 say we can't set aside another rule or the decision of another official. It was the T's decision to signal OOB and thus we can't set that aside regardless of whether he was right or wrong.

If somebody is interpreting it that the signal wasn't made until the ball touched someone OOB then sure everything was done according to how it should have, I just saw it as the signal came as soon as the ball hit the ground.

Furthermore, I've changed my stance on the stopwatch. The rules to call for a stopwatch to be placed tableside for the use of timing TO's. Not sure it was intended for the way it was used last night, but that's where 2.3 comes in.

In the end it comes down to the question of do we get it right or do we do it by the rules. NCAA Rule 2.2.1 seems to say we do second.

[OHBBREF]

sounds to me like the officials did an exellent job here after hearing what actually happened.

I would say this was an ANNOUNCERS ERROR
for opening his mouth when he didn't have a clue.

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The problem that I have with this is that it appears they just made up the 2.0number. I don't see how they came up with definite knowledge that 1.1 seconds came off the clock. Did they play it in real time and use a stop watch? I don't think so, and even if they did, I don't think that is allowed by rule. As the announcers said, "they are just going to have to come up with a number." I think that is exactly what they did.

Oh wait, the announcers said they needed to come up with a number? Okay. Good to know. Why did the officials even watch the video? Why didn't they just go ask the announcers? That would have saved time.

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE ANNOUNCERS DON'T KNOW THE RULES.

And yes, if you were watching the TV, you would have seen the officials with a stopwatch.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Let's break this down for you piano man, nice & slow.

The ball was legally inbounded at 3.2 seconds. It touched a player B1 and then hit the court (that means it was still inbounds). The clock did not start. The ball then bounced high in the air and finally went OOB. No time came off the clock (that means 3.2 seconds still showed on the clock). NCAA rules allow the officials to use a monitor to fix timing errors. They used the monitor (and a stop watch I understand) to determine 1.1 seconds elapsed between the time the ball touched B1 and the time it went OOB.

Hopefully this clears it up for you and you can rest easy knowing that your team wasn't screwed.

In a thread that was properly labelled, how has this mispost made it all the way to page 5 with no correction? It was 3.1 seconds Dan.

You're welcome.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

In a thread that was properly labelled, how has this mispost made it all the way to page 5 with no correction? It was 3.1 seconds Dan.

You're welcome.

Wow. I'm honored that you read my posts so closely.

If you'll excuse me I need to go take a shower.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Wow. I'm honored that you read my posts so closely.

If you'll excuse me I need to go take a shower.

Uh oh..where's Chuck?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Uh oh..where's Chuck?

He's hiding from Dan.