Any NCAA rules gurus out there?

[ChuckElias]

I have a couple questions from the NCAA Men's Rules Quiz that I got wrong, and I honestly don't understand why. I'm hoping that somebody can explain why these situations are ruled as they are.

1) A1's try is blocked. A2 and B2 simultaneously recover the ball. The AP arrow favors team A. Official awards the ball to Team A and resets the shot clock. Is the official correct?

The answer is yes. But why would you reset it? If there was no shot, and a held ball, with the arrow favoring the offensive team, there's no reset. Why does the shot matter? If A1 shoots an airball and another player from A recovers, there's no reset.

The rules citation is 2-13-6.c, which says you reset on any held ball (!) with some exceptions. I guess I didn't remember that clause. So maybe my question is, why is "c" in there? Why reset on a held ball if there's no change of possession? Additionally, would you also reset the shot clock if, instead of a block by B1, A1 shoots and airball and then A2 and B2 recover?

2) A5 is fouled while in the act of shooting. The try is unsuccessful. Before the free throws, A5 is charged with a technical foul. This is A5's 5th foul, but the scorer does not inform the official. After the free throws for the technical fouls, A5 attempts and makes both free throws. The error is now recognized. The official rules that this can be corrected under the correctable error rule. Is the official correct?

The answer is no, and the rules citation (2-11, A.R. 20) makes it pretty explicit. But it seems that in this sort of case, we have a player who was clearly not entitled to shoot his free throws. Why not allow this to be correctable? It wasn't the player's fault, so I'm not saying he should be additionally penalized. But why not just wipe the FT's and let the sub shoot them, as should've happened in the first place?

Any comments that would help me make some sense of these situations in my head would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Chuck

[Dennis Flannery]

Chuck I will answer the first one for you, since the shot was taken and team control is now out the window, and then A grabs it again on an airball you would leave the clock alone. IN your case both A and B grab it simultaneously, you have a change of status in control. The key factor is simultaneously, if A got it first then B tied it up the cock would stay the same. If B got it first then A tied it up, you would have a reset, because the ball changed status. I hope this helps you understand it.

[112448]

I think Dennis did an excellent job answering your first query - i completely agree with his rationale. So, i'll tackle the 2nd question for you.

Check rule 4-17-4 A.R. 9

It appears that A.R. 9 (b) is exactly the question that appeared on your rules quiz. Reading that ruling is a little difficult - b/c i don't think the editor of the book finished the edit job there, but if you read 4-17-4 i think you'll get the jist of why the situation is not correctable.

Jake

[crew]

in situation 2 the terminology is the shooter is still a player until the table notifies the officials of disqualification. therefor he can still play in the game legally untill the disqualification irs recognized. i am not looking at my book but i think this is the correct assumption.

[BBarnaky]

Chuck,
Dennis' assessment of play 1 and crew's assessment of play 2 that you asked are exactly correct. I actually had a pre-game the other night and we talked about play 1 of your post. Good questions!!!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dennis Flannery
Chuck I will answer the first one for you, since the shot was taken and team control is now out the window, and then A grabs it again on an airball you would leave the clock alone. IN your case both A and B grab it simultaneously, you have a change of status in control. The key factor is simultaneously, if A got it first then B tied it up the cock would stay the same. If B got it first then A tied it up, you would have a reset, because the ball changed status.

I agree that you've stated it correctly and I understand it after reading the rules citation. My question, I guess, is why? If you don't reset when A recovers his own airball, why do you reset when A and B both recover A's airball? In neither case is there a change in possession. I don't see the rationale for making these cases different.

orignally posted by crew

in situation 2 the terminology is the shooter is still a player until the table notifies the officials of disqualification.

This doesn't really help, Tony. Just b/c he's still a player doesn't necessarily mean that he is entitled to the free throws, does it? If he's a player who is not entitled to be a player (b/c he should be disqualified), then it seems reasonable to me to say that he's not entitled to make the free throws. And that would fall under 2-10. Clearly, that's not the correct interpretation, and I understand that. But it seems to me that it would be more consistent with the rest of the rules to interpret it that way. I'll get over it, tho (I know, I know: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.)

Chuck

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
This doesn't really help, Tony. Just b/c he's still a player doesn't necessarily mean that he is entitled to the free throws, does it? If he's a player who is not entitled to be a player (b/c he should be disqualified), then it seems reasonable to me to say that he's not entitled to make the free throws. And that would fall under 2-10. Clearly, that's not the correct interpretation, and I understand that. But it seems to me that it would be more consistent with the rest of the rules to interpret it that way. I'll get over it, tho (I know, I know: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.)

Chuck

Try it this way -- suppose the scorer didn't inform you that the player fouled out until several minutes had elapsed. THe player scored some points, maybe even committed some more fouls (get a new scorer!), etc.

How much of that is correctable? None, right? So, why would the free-throws be correctable?

[Mark Dexter]

For the second one, how about 2-10-3a.? It's not a true "correctable" error, but I think the philosophy (which is Bob Jenkins's) is applicable.

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Try it this way -- suppose the scorer didn't inform you that the player fouled out until several minutes had elapsed. THe player scored some points, maybe even committed some more fouls (get a new scorer!), etc.

How much of that is correctable? None, right? So, why would the free-throws be correctable?

Bob, my thinking in that case would've been that it wouldn't be correctable b/c the "statute of limitations" had expired. In your scenario, we've had numerous dead balls and live balls after the clock started. So it would no longer fall under 2-10. But in the original sitch, the clock never started, so it seemed to fall under the correctable error rule.

Chuck

[Mark Dexter]

Upon further review (), A.R. 9 would apply here.

It is, however, poorly written - "The scorer . . . does not inform the scorer that A5 is disqualified."

Huh?