"Assuming" that he was telling them what his thoughts and feelings were about their calls would probably be pretty safe. I thought it was hilarious that he covered his mouth so the camera couldn't pick up his lips. I also thought it was very wise of the official on the endline to move farther away from the coach.

I also am wondering about the L not having a whistle on the last Marquette shot. The ball clearly bounces oob and he just stands there looking back at his partners, then turns to get the ball. Never once blew his whistle, never once went to the partners to help with putting time back on the clock. Nothing. Just stood there. That was weird!

There is a difference between saying someone was throwing "F-Bombs" and saying they were complaining about something. We have no idea what was said and what was not said. I guess you can read lips through someone's hands. And the coach might not have said anything that he did not say before. Which in many ways would not raise any eyebrows under the right circumstance.

Peace

I won't say "kudos" necessarily, since i don't know what was said. If he was using profanity and dropping F-bombs loudly at the officials, I don't give a rat's tail whether we could read his lips or not. I'll give the official the benefit of the doubt here, but let's not pretend an official shouldn't call a T here just because it might give the howler monkey a bigger stage for his tantrum.

Any coach can earn that stage if he wants, I don't care.

With all due respect, I was a 10 year old many moons ago and knew this was a violation. I find it hard to believe that you officiate any level of high school.

That said, this is the place to learn

Come on JRut, why would he cover his mouth so that TV couldn't read his lips unless he was using profanity...he was totally irrate at this time of the game. He would not be the first coach to drop a "bad" word on a referee.

Now I am supposed to be a mind reader? I do not try to understand why people do anything. The point is you do not know and I do not know. And to say that "he had to be dropping F-bombs" might be a stretch.

I do not know why this really matters to you; the officials did not give him a T for doing it. And unless you talk to them, you do not know what they said or what they think he said.

Give me a break if you think you know why and what was said.

Peace

It looked like he thought one of his partners had a whistle just before it went out. I thought I heard something that sounded like a whistle...perhaps a shoe squeak. That would explain his lack of a call.

Here was my previous post:

Just guessing by his actions and by covering his mouth so his lips couldn't be read...he wasn't letting them know they were doing a great job. Not sure they were actual f*bombs.

Relax a bit...it really doesn't matter to me either way.
__________________

Who needs to relax? You said, "Come on Rut" as if the world was coming to an end if someone did not agree with your take on this issue. :confused:

I simply said you do not know what was said and neither do I. And to say he must be dropping f-bombs because he covered up his mouth is kind of silly to me. We do not know what the official said to the coach either and neither official covered up their mouths. ;)

Peace

Why is stepping on the line a violation? He didn't say OVER the line.

I am not sure what you saw, but the player stepped onto the court. His foot was also on the line, but the front part of his foot was on the court, not just touching the line. The line was black; he was on the court portion while also touching the line.

Now I am not sure what do-over you are suggesting. This was clearly a violation and needed to be called. We would have been talking about what a bad miss if it was not called today.

Peace

Really??? Never seen that in the book. If I've missed it, please point it out to me.

I don't know exactly what John Adams told the guys about using the monitor prior to the start of the tournament, but I'll ask some people and try to find out. I've heard that he addressed it.

However, here are the pertinent rules:

2-13-3b. Determine whether a shot-clock violation occurred before the reading
of zeros on the game clock at the end of the first half, or at the end
of the second half/extra period only when necessary to determine the
outcome of a game.

2-13-6. The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment
calls such as:
a. Determine who committed a foul or whether a foul occurred. Exception:
(Men) flagrant foul
b. Determine whether basket interference or goaltending occurred.
c. Determine whether a violation occurred.
d. Whether the ball was released before the sounding of the shot-clock
horn, except as in 2-13.3.b.

2-11-12. Allow the game officials to make the final decision when there
is doubt as to whether a score was made within the shot-clock period or
whether a try for goal contacted the ring or flange.
a. When there is doubt whether a score was made within the shot-clock
period or whether a try for goal contacted the ring or flange, any
activity before the next live ball shall be canceled, with the exception
of any flagrant foul, intentional foul or technical foul.

2-11-9. Sound the shot-clock horn at the expiration of the shot-clock period.
This shot-clock horn shall not stop play unless recognized by an official’s
whistle. When the shot clock indicates zeros but the shot-clock horn has not
sounded, the shot-clock time has not expired.

(Sitting in the gym, it appeared that the put-back was after the clock showed zero, but was released prior to the horn sounding. Of course, sound echos in an arena and that is a tough determination to make.)

The first part was from the OP, not my words. I didn't see the play, I was merely asking Fullor30 why he stated (or perhaps mis-stated) why stepping on the line was a violation. In the OP, he/she said, "stepping on the line is not a violation." It appeared he didn't see the inbounder step over the line but he wasn't really referring to that play.

I agree about the do-over. There is no do-over, it's either a violation or it isn't, meaning they either step on the line or over the line.

Goodness, are you going to be that anal to hang on every word an announcer makes? How do know he didn't say over as opposed to on the line? With that logic if an announcer says a 'reach in' foul you're going to say no foul occurred because he used the wrong terminology? In addition in the replay, I recall announcer's partner saying he stepped over the line.

Next you'll be fooling with the lyrics to

"One toke OVER the line"

Like I said in my post, I did not watch the game or see the play. Also, the first half of my original post is what the OP said even though it isn't quoted. I fixed my first post in this thread to show I was quoting the OP.