![]() |
In another ridiculously long and tortuous thread, I found this gem written by Mark Padgett:
Quote:
Did anybody see the Wake Forest/Clemson game last night? Or see the highlights on SportsCenter this morning. Game went OT and in the OT with about 7 seconds left, Wake scored and Clemson couldn't inbound the ball, so the inbounder requests a time-out. Official grants it and. . . Holy Chris Webber, Batman!! They're out of time-outs!! Technical foul on Clemson, Wake shoots two FTs to cut the Clemson lead to 3 and then -- Clemson gets the ball back!!! Point of interruption, baby!! They inbound successfully this time and the game is over. If Wake Forest had been given the ball as part of the penalty for the T, they would've had a much better chance to tie the game and force another OT. The women's rule is actually better in this instance. After a T, they return the ball to the POI, except in the case of intentional, flagrant, or excessive TO technicals. Just thought I'd share, Chuck |
And that is exactly why the NCAA Women's rule is different on that point...that coach knew that if he called the t.o. he would give up 2 free throws, but if they turned it over he could possibly give up a 3pt. shot...he chose to call the t.o. KNOWING he would get the ball back at worst still up by three...it's a loophole thet the Men's rules people will probably fix this summer...
|
Rocky, just from watching the highlights, I'm pretty sure the TO was requested by the player inbounding the ball. The official who blew the whistle for the TO was the Trail (administering the throw-in), so I don't think he heard a coach's request. In any case, the coach did not seem pleased. The R went to explain it to him.
While I agree that a smart coach (oxymoron?) could manipulate the rule that way, I don't think that's what happened in this particular case. Clemson just got lucky. I think. :) Chuck |
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40am. |