Cal/UCLA DD??

[rainmaker]

Anyone watching Cal/UCLA (men)? Can someone explain the DD call (2nd half, 15:30 mark)? I didn't get a good look, but it didn't look like a violation.

[rainmaker]

Okay, I'm assuming that shooting over the backboard is legal in NCAA?

And why did they put .7 on the clock on that final oob? Was it when the ball was tapped by UCLA?

And did anyone think that play down in UCLA's corner where the announcers thought the Cal player got hacked was really a foul? There wasn't one good angle on any of the replays.

Also contrary to what the announcers sayd, it was clearly the center's call. Lead didn't have a good angle at all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, I'm assuming that shooting over the backboard is legal in NCAA?

No, it's not, but let's keep this discussion in the other thread.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Anyone watching Cal/UCLA (men)? Can someone explain the DD call (2nd half, 15:30 mark)? I didn't get a good look, but it didn't look like a violation.

You left coast people................there is only one game today and it's in Durham.

[SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, I'm assuming that shooting over the backboard is legal in NCAA?

And why did they put .7 on the clock on that final oob? Was it when the ball was tapped by UCLA?

And did anyone think that play down in UCLA's corner where the announcers thought the Cal player got hacked was really a foul? There wasn't one good angle on any of the replays.

Also contrary to what the announcers sayd, it was clearly the center's call. Lead didn't have a good angle at all.

Good points here. Shooting over the backboard is NOT legal in NCAA. Based on what I saw, I believe that the officials call a fist violation, which is why there was more time on the clock and the ball was inbounded on the sideline. If that was the case, however, I believe there should have been 1.5on the clock since the clock was stopped at 1.5 when the fist occurred. Either that or the ball should have been inbounded on the endline with however much time left that they determined when the ball was OOB.

In terms of the "foul" the announcers were barking about, there was no angle that definitively showed any foul. Further, the C made an excellent OOB call giving it to UCLA, so I very much doubt he could "swallow the whistle" if he was that focused on the OOB play. As for the over the backboard, judgement call and it was pretty close, so I think they erred on the side of counting the basket.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

Good points here. Shooting over the backboard is NOT legal in NCAA. Based on what I saw, I believe that the officials call a fist violation, which is why there was more time on the clock and the ball was inbounded on the sideline. If that was the case, however, I believe there should have been 1.5on the clock since the clock was stopped at 1.5 when the fist occurred. Either that or the ball should have been inbounded on the endline with however much time left that they determined when the ball was OOB.

In terms of the "foul" the announcers were barking about, there was no angle that definitively showed any foul. Further, the C made an excellent OOB call giving it to UCLA, so I very much doubt he could "swallow the whistle" if he was that focused on the OOB play. As for the over the backboard, judgement call and it was pretty close, so I think they erred on the side of counting the basket.

Okay, a fist call makes sense. I thought that's what it looked like, but forgot to think about how that would affect the clock.

I also thought the oob call by the C was excellent. That replay from the C's angle made it very, very clear. Regarding the foul, I think there may have been a swung arm, but the ball movement didn't reflect the kind of hack on the arm that the announcers wanted. It looked like a good no call to me.

I did think they could have called a hold on UCLA before the Cal player got the ball. It looked like one UCLA player had his arm all the way around, wth a generous helping of jersey in the hand.

[BillyMac]

Wow. I thought I was the only one to call a fist violation this season. I had some concerns that I was being an overly officious official.

Note to Mark Padgett: Please leave this one alone. I already know what you're thinking.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, a fist call makes sense. I thought that's what it looked like, but forgot to think about how that would affect the clock.

I also thought the oob call by the C was excellent. That replay from the C's angle made it very, very clear. Regarding the foul, I think there may have been a swung arm, but the ball movement didn't reflect the kind of hack on the arm that the announcers wanted. It looked like a good no call to me.

I did think they could have called a hold on UCLA before the Cal player got the ball. It looked like one UCLA player had his arm all the way around, wth a generous helping of jersey in the hand.

As far as the double dribble at 15:38 of the 2nd half, I blew a rule this year so I'm not judging, but Dave blew the rule or he thought he saw something that never happened. The Cal player caught the ball, threw it down with 2 hands and recovered the ball. All he did was start a dribble and end a dribble.
So either he reacted with a whistle to an unusual but legal play, or he didn't know it was legal. Like I said I'm not judging a 9 time Final four official.
Shipp's shot was not over the backboard. I watched it 5 times and I saw it go beside the corner not over. And it was so close -- good no call.
To me there is no way they called a fist violation on the ensuing inbound.
There was 1.5 on the clock and the 1st touch was a fist. If they called the violation there would have been 1.2 left not 0.7; I think they were trying to judge how long it took from the touch to where it would have touched out of bounds. The angles I saw did not show the ball in the picture where it would have touched out of bounds.
Any thought to a technical foul on UCLA for entering the court before the expiration of time???

[socalreff]

[QUOTE=SMEngmann]Good points here. Shooting over the backboard is NOT legal in NCAA. Based on what I saw, I believe that the officials call a fist violation, which is why there was more time on the clock and the ball was inbounded on the sideline. If that was the case, however, I believe there should have been 1.5on the clock since the clock was stopped at 1.5 when the fist occurred. Either that or the ball should have been inbounded on the endline with however much time left that they determined when the ball was OOB.QUOTE]

The clock starts on a touch. You have to take time off and the ball goes to the spot of the violation. It should have been 1.2

[Adam]

[QUOTE=socalreff]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

Good points here. Shooting over the backboard is NOT legal in NCAA. Based on what I saw, I believe that the officials call a fist violation, which is why there was more time on the clock and the ball was inbounded on the sideline. If that was the case, however, I believe there should have been 1.5on the clock since the clock was stopped at 1.5 when the fist occurred. Either that or the ball should have been inbounded on the endline with however much time left that they determined when the ball was OOB.QUOTE]

The clock starts on a touch. You have to take time off and the ball goes to the spot of the violation. It should have been 1.2

Why 1.2?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by socalreff

The clock starts on a touch. You have to take time off and the ball goes to the spot of the violation. It should have been 1.2

I didn't see the play in question (other than a tiny ESPN.com playback), but are you referring to the rule that at least 0.3 must run off the clock if the ball is inbounded and tipped OOB?

If so, that only applies in the NBA.

[SMEngmann]

[QUOTE=socalreff]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

Good points here. Shooting over the backboard is NOT legal in NCAA. Based on what I saw, I believe that the officials call a fist violation, which is why there was more time on the clock and the ball was inbounded on the sideline. If that was the case, however, I believe there should have been 1.5on the clock since the clock was stopped at 1.5 when the fist occurred. Either that or the ball should have been inbounded on the endline with however much time left that they determined when the ball was OOB.QUOTE]

The clock starts on a touch. You have to take time off and the ball goes to the spot of the violation. It should have been 1.2

Why would the clock start if the touch was a violation, in this case a fist to the ball? The ball was not legally touched in that case, so there should be 1.5 on the clock as I read the rule.

Now, if a fist violation hadn't occurred, the ball clearly went OOB on the baseline, and on my DVR replay, when the game clock showed 0.7 the ball was clearly over OOB but hadn't touched anything yet. My point is that if they called OOB there should have been a baseline throw-in. If they called a fist, there should have been more time on the clock. That's why I'm confused as to what was actually called. Obviously there's something they saw on the monitor that I didn't on my replays.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought she was talking about the cheerleaders.

[socalreff]

[QUOTE=SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Why would the clock start if the touch was a violation, in this case a fist to the ball? The ball was not legally touched in that case, so there should be 1.5 on the clock as I read the rule.

Now, if a fist violation hadn't occurred, the ball clearly went OOB on the baseline, and on my DVR replay, when the game clock showed 0.7 the ball was clearly over OOB but hadn't touched anything yet. My point is that if they called OOB there should have been a baseline throw-in. If they called a fist, there should have been more time on the clock. That's why I'm confused as to what was actually called. Obviously there's something they saw on the monitor that I didn't on my replays.

I saw the replay from 2 angles. They got it wrong. Either 1.2 with fist violation or 0.1 at the most when it touched out of bounds. The reason for time coming off with the violation is because the clock starts on a touch, not a legal touch. Don't confuse it with the throw-in ending rule.
The reason the NBA does 0.3 in these situations is to be consistent across the board and 0.4 or more you can catch. You could take off .1 or .2 if you'd like.

[Adam]

[QUOTE=socalreff]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

I saw the replay from 2 angles. They got it wrong. Either 1.2 with fist violation or 0.1 at the most when it touched out of bounds. The reason for time coming off with the violation is because the clock starts on a touch, not a legal touch. Don't confuse it with the throw-in ending rule.
The reason the NBA does 0.3 in these situations is to be consistent across the board and 0.4 or more you can catch. You could take off .1 or .2 if you'd like.

Where's your definite knowledge? You can't just pull a number out of your a$$, no matter how accurate you think your a$$ may be.