SEC tourney

[grunewar]

Thoughts on the 5 sec count with 9.6 secs left?

Hey, you stole my thunder!

[grunewar]

What a bizzare ending in so many ways!

Clock problems abound.....

[Rich]

Two live balls now with a clock not starting. STILL at 9.3 seconds.

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Two live balls now with a clock not starting. STILL at 9.3 seconds.

3 live balls now where the clock has not started. Just curious as to who is supposed to start the clock? Administering official, clock operator?

Situations:

1. Ball inbounded off defenders leg, clock does not move from 9.6 seconds. Clock adjusted by officials to 9.3 seconds.

2. Ball inbounded to Miss St., catches, steps out of bounds, still 9.3 seconds.

3. Ball inbounded by Tenn., passed from A2 back to inbounder then stolen by Miss. St who then steps out of bounds, clock still at 9.3 seconds.

[HoopsRefJunior]

2009-2010 schedules for all SEC officials (except 3) just got better.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HoopsRefJunior

2009-2010 schedules for all SEC officials (except 3) just got better.

I tell ya, the lead gets a travel correctly and the trail, who had just administered the inbound, overrules him from near the division line when the contact would actually be facing the lead.

Anyway, as a Tennessee alum (grad school), it doesn't surprise me Tennessee lost. They always make bad decisions at the end of games.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I tell ya, the lead gets a travel correctly and the trail, who had just administered the inbound, overrules him from near the division line when the contact would actually be facing the lead.

Doesn't the trail have the play as it's leaving his area, headed toward the basket?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by HoopsRefJunior

2009-2010 schedules for all SEC officials (except 3) just got better.

I don't know that that's the case. Tony Greene was the R was not a factor in any of those calls.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It was 5 seconds but the official only gave 4 visible counts.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I don't know that that's the case. Tony Greene was the R was not a factor in any of those calls.

I noticed that too on the replay.

Also looked like the thrower asked for a TO before the last chop.

The phantom block call and the overruled travel were unfortunate.

But both teams had major brain cramps near the end as well. I'd say the winner feels pretty lucky right now.

[agmattbballref]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

3 live balls now where the clock has not started. Just curious as to who is supposed to start the clock? Administering official, clock operator?

Situations:

1. Ball inbounded off defenders leg, clock does not move from 9.6 seconds. Clock adjusted by officials to 9.3 seconds.

2. Ball inbounded to Miss St., catches, steps out of bounds, still 9.3 seconds.

3. Ball inbounded by Tenn., passed from A2 back to inbounder then stolen by Miss. St who then steps out of bounds, clock still at 9.3 seconds.

At the point where the ball was kicked on the inbound play, the officials reset the time on the clock from 9.6 to 9.3. Since the kicking violation does not constitute a legal touch, I believe that no time should have gone off the clock in that instance. Am I wrong? I refer to the case book in the attached text....

A. R. 165. After a goal by Team B, Team A has the ball for a throw-in
from the end of the playing court from where the goal was
made.
(1) B1 kicks the ball along the sideline; or
(2) B1 kicks the ball along the end line from where the throwin
was attempted.
RULING: (1) The kick is a floor violation and the ball shall be
awarded to Team A at a designated spot nearest to where the violation
occurred.
(Rule 9-6 and 7-5.1)
(2) The floor violation of kicking the ball victimizes Team A. Consequently,
Team A shall retain the privilege to the throw-in from
anywhere along the end line.
(Rule 9-6, 7-5 and 6.a.4)
In (1) and (2), the throw-in was not legally completed since the kick
is not a legal touch. As a result, the shot clock shall not start. When
this situation occurs in the remaining 59.9 seconds of the second half
or an extra period, neither the game clock nor the shot clock shall be
started because of the violation.

Maybe I am missing something, but I noticed this along with all the other violations previously mentioned in the thread and I do believe it was the referee who went to the table in this instance and reset the game clock.

By the way, before anyone gets started, I am no troll. I simply enjoy reading rather than posting most times... I akin it to sitting at the feet of learned men and women... Thanks in advance for your feedback...

[cardinalfan]

I had to leave home with 1:15 on the clock, so I tuned in to the Vol Radio Network. The announcers made me think the referees were there only to cheat TN.
They were definitely hard on Sirmens (sp?). I got home and watched the replay, and it was an ugly mess. But not exactly the way the radio guys called it. Imagine that!

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by agmattbballref

At the point where the ball was kicked on the inbound play, the officials reset the time on the clock from 9.6 to 9.3. Since the kicking violation does not constitute a legal touch, I believe that no time should have gone off the clock in that instance. Am I wrong? I refer to the case book in the attached text....

It wasn't a kicking violation, it was an inbounds pass that went off the defenders leg, there's a difference. Did you notice that the ensuing inbounds was from the sideline where the ball went out? Had it been ruled a kick then yes your rule citation would be correct and the ball would of been inbounded at the same spot on the endline.

[agmattbballref]

Originally Posted by eyezen

It wasn't a kicking violation, it was an inbounds pass that went off the defenders leg, there's a difference. Did you notice that the ensuing inbounds was from the sideline where the ball went out? Had it been ruled a kick then yes you are correct no time should of came off and the ball would of been inbounded at the same spot on the endline.

Thanks,

I must have missed that; it certainly looked as if the defender kicked the ball; in retrospect you are probably correct. Unfortunately, I did not TVO the game; it would have been a good teaching point for new officials to analyze all aspects of the play and pick up on the dispositon of the ball for the throw-in. Thanks for the insight.

[eyezen]

Agree. This is strange. 3 plays in a row the clock didn't roll.

[grunewar]

Ain't Bruce Pearl a hoot to watch though?