NCAA Tourney - Marquette v. Missouri

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by actuary77

Was watching the end of the Marquette v. Missouri game and I saw 2 interesting end of game situations.

1) When a Mizzou player was fouled in the act of shooting, he was grimacing and was "injured" that he was unable to attempt the free throws. As expected, a better free throw shooter from the bench subbed for him and took the free throws (he made both). After the free throws, the original "injured" player entered back to the game.

I know this is allowed in the official NCAA rules. But what surprised me was there was no restriction on when the "injured" player can come back in. So why aren't more coaches using this legal procedure of faking an injury if the fouled player is bad at free throws? Or maybe we really live in a world where most coaches honor the intent of the rule and not abuse it.

2) Is it really a throw-in violation when the player inbounding the ball stepped on the end line? The color commentator was pretty emphatic about it, but I couldn't find it in the rules.

I'm a HS official and I know that in HS, this is NOT a violation, at least not when it's after a field goal. The most you can do is stop the play and do a repeat of the throw-in.
Is it covered under the rule of the spot throw-in and it's technically leaving the spot?

Thanks.

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

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by actuary77

2) Is it really a throw-in violation when the player inbounding the ball stepped on the end line? The color commentator was pretty emphatic about it, but I couldn't find it in the rules.

I'm a HS official and I know that in HS, this is NOT a violation, at least not when it's after a field goal. The most you can do is stop the play and do a repeat of the throw-in.

That said, this is the place to learn

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

2) Is it really a throw-in violation when the player inbounding the ball stepped on the end line? The color commentator was pretty emphatic about it, but I couldn't find it in the rules.

I'm a HS official and I know that in HS, this is NOT a violation, at least not when it's after a field goal. The most you can do is stop the play and do a repeat of the throw-in.

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

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

2) Is it really a throw-in violation when the player inbounding the ball stepped on the end line? The color commentator was pretty emphatic about it, but I couldn't find it in the rules.

I'm a HS official and I know that in HS, this is NOT a violation, at least not when it's after a field goal. The most you can do is stop the play and do a repeat of the throw-in.



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

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by fullor30

It's pretty obvious what he meant, you saw the infraction
hopefully........

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

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.

I think we all know what happened, not really worth posting about, just semantics.

[diner30]

I can't believe everyone let this go. The shot at the end of the game was a foul! Call the obvious. The defender was never in legal guarding postion. The shooter was not out of control (which doesn't matter), and was clearly contacted by the defender. A foul should have been called and 3 shots awarded. Just because a player is "out of control" doesn't mean that the defense can foul them. It really doesn't matter in this play, because the offensive player was in clear control of his body, and the defender clearly moved into his space. The player was also clearly in the act of shooting. Just because he was farther away from the basket than usual doesn't mean that he wasn't shooting. The play is what it is...a player in the act of shooting was contacted by a defender who was not in a legal guarding positon, and the contact put the offensive player at a clear disadvantage. 3 shot foul. Why do we make this so complicated on ourselves? That is why we make mistakes, we over complicate a simple situation. The reason that the L didn't blow his whistle is most likely because he thought a foul was called on the shot, and there was no need for his whistle. The toughest part of this play is that the L had the best look at it. But "it was out of his area," so an obvious foul was let go. Anyone on the court who saw that foul should have had a whistle on it.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by diner30

I can't believe everyone let this go. The shot at the end of the game was a foul! Call the obvious. The defender was never in legal guarding postion. The shooter was not out of control (which doesn't matter), and was clearly contacted by the defender. A foul should have been called and 3 shots awarded. Just because a player is "out of control" doesn't mean that the defense can foul them. It really doesn't matter in this play, because the offensive player was in clear control of his body, and the defender clearly moved into his space. The player was also clearly in the act of shooting. Just because he was farther away from the basket than usual doesn't mean that he wasn't shooting. The play is what it is...a player in the act of shooting was contacted by a defender who was not in a legal guarding positon, and the contact put the offensive player at a clear disadvantage. 3 shot foul. Why do we make this so complicated on ourselves? That is why we make mistakes, we over complicate a simple situation. The reason that the L didn't blow his whistle is most likely because he thought a foul was called on the shot, and there was no need for his whistle. The toughest part of this play is that the L had the best look at it. But "it was out of his area," so an obvious foul was let go. Anyone on the court who saw that foul should have had a whistle on it.

If you saw it on TV like I did, you couldn't tell from camera view. I'm going to go with the crew who had a better look.

What year did you graduate from Marquette?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by diner30

I can't believe everyone let this go. The shot at the end of the game was a foul! Call the obvious. The defender was never in legal guarding postion. The shooter was not out of control (which doesn't matter), and was clearly contacted by the defender.

Oh yes it does. The simple fact there was contact does not mean there is a foul. The shooter was just trying to throw the ball at the basket and did not need contact for him to fall. Even if the defender is not in legal guarding position, that player is allowed their place on the floor. They do not have to move out of the way of the shooter simple because they are a shooter.

Originally Posted by diner30

A foul should have been called and 3 shots awarded. Just because a player is "out of control" doesn't mean that the defense can foul them. It really doesn't matter in this play, because the offensive player was in clear control of his body, and the defender clearly moved into his space. The player was also clearly in the act of shooting.
Just because he was farther away from the basket than usual doesn't mean that he wasn't shooting. The play is what it is...a player in the act of shooting was contacted by a defender who was not in a legal guarding positon, and the contact put the offensive player at a clear disadvantage. 3 shot foul. Why do we make this so complicated on ourselves? That is why we make mistakes, we over complicate a simple situation.

Clear? Obvious? Obvious to whom? Because the angle they showed at best had two players standing next to each other. I do not know that the defender even moved into the direction of the shooter. It is very debatable that the defender even did anything illegal. And for all I can tell the shooter jumped in the defender's direction. And it is not complicated if what someone saw is different from you.

Originally Posted by diner30

The reason that the L didn't blow his whistle is most likely because he thought a foul was called on the shot, and there was no need for his whistle. The toughest part of this play is that the L had the best look at it. But "it was out of his area," so an obvious foul was let go. Anyone on the court who saw that foul should have had a whistle on it.

Why would the lead have a better look 10 feet away from the three point line? And he has players right in front of him during the play? I would disagree with "anyone seeing the foul" argument. If you see that foul, what were the other players doing that you were should be watching?

Peace