NCAA Tourney - Marquette v. Missouri
 

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.

2) The Marquette player didn't step ON the endline, he clearly stepped OVER the endline by several inches. It was a great call backed up by the replay. T was all over it. The Marquette coach apparently was looking for an off-ball foul prior to the violation (my interpretation of his demonstrative behavior).

The game certainly had an exciting ending! Surely it was March Madness.

1) The officials correctly denied the replaced player reentry into the game until the clock had been correctly started and stopped.

My question: since the player who was too injured to shoot free throws can play seconds after being replaced, could the officials invoke the rule which is a techincal foul for intentionally allowing the wrong player to shoot the free throws? If he was legtimately injured, he wouldn't have been able to go back in that soon (one could assume, I hope). And the coach and team should know that he should have shot the free throws.

2) His toe touched the playing court inbounds. Part of the foot has to touch inbounds, not all of it.

NO!!!

Peace

Why stop the play and do a repeat? If it's not a violation, there's no reason to stop play, if it's a violation you certainly can't repeat the same play! I don't get what you're driving at here.

In #1, he tried to re-enter, but was not allowed to. NCAA states that time must run off the clock for a player to re-enter. Rule 3-4-14.

In #2, yes this is a violation as it is in HS. There are numerous rules that make this a violation. Most notably for NFHS rule 9-2-5.

My biggest question at the end of the game, is why did L not have a whistle for OOB with 1.1 seconds left? He just kinda turned to get the ball from the camera man. He seemed a little confused, like he thought the game was over.

1) The sub was a freshman with a 69% Ft average replacing a JR with a 77% FT average

2) God I hope you're really not a HS official

LOL Thanks for both of these... I didn't have the energy to look up #1... #2 crossed my mind several times lol.

"Peace" rings quite hollow when you use the triple-exclamation.

How old are you? :rolleyes:

Peace

I've Been Patiently Waiting For Just the Right Time For This:
 

Did anyone have a foul on that last shot? I did.
I know, I know, don't decide the game. C had no angle on it.

No.

Out of control player trying to cause contact on a heave. Based on what I saw, I do not think I would have called that if it was the first few minutes of the game. It has nothing to do with deciding the game, it just was not there.

Peace

Actually, I believe after the violation, which was undeniable, the coach was telling his team: "We have to foul."

As others have asked, why would you stop the play and repeat the throw-in even he stepped ON the line? The Marquette player stepped OVER the line, which is a violation in HS and NCAA.

That is what I got from it also. He was telling his players to foul immediately.

This was the final game of the weekend for me up in Boise.

There were plenty of situations in it to discuss.

A few things which have not been mentioned so far:

1. Officials consult the monitor regarding a shot clock violation call with 1:13 remaining.

2. The block/charge with 5.5 seconds left.

3. Following the end line violation, Marquette fouls. The clock stops a bit slow. Marquette HC gesturing wildly and doing jumping jacks on the court to get the attention of the officials. They see him. He points to his wrist. One of the officials gives the same gesture in return. The first FT is then attempted. After it is successful the Marquette HC takes a time-out and when the officials come over, he is able to get them to check the monitor for the game clock. It is reset from 4.4 to 5.0 and then the 2nd FT is attempted.

4. The inadvertant whistle with 36.1 seconds remaining in the first half.

1. Officials can go to the monitor to see if the ball hit the rim...this was the correct call and procedure.

2. This was an obvious blocking foul on Marquette.

3. I thought they handled this well...they had a few clock issues in the game...out of the officials control.

JAR, could be.

I tell you what though, in several of those games where it came down to the end and controversial calls, some of those coaches were way, way out on the court!

The Marquette Coach Buzz Williams lost his mind at the end of the game.

1) They checked to see if the ball hit the rim. It didn't and the clock expired before the put back by Marquette.

2) Block call was correct.

3) I was wondering what the HC was excited about.

4) Didn't see the 1st half

Exactly what I saw. I loved the call, but couldn't hear the announcers on it since we were at a restaurant.

My daughter ratted me out as soon as we sat down. "Dad, it's perfect for you, a big screen TV." Wife hadn't noticed yet.

"Do we need to switch places?"

"No, I'm good."

Watching in silence, I thought he was gonna get a T when he didn't get that foul call he wanted on his out of control shooter.
And I agree the block call was spot on; defender was moving into the shooter when contact was made.

Please don't say this. If he had been fouled, not calling it would be deciding the game. In this case, though, there was no foul. The defender was moving in a straight line away from the shooter and the shooter initiated all the contact.

HC for Marquette did a good job of putting his hand over his mouth while dropping f*Bombs on the referees during the last few seconds of the game.

It was a great no call.

I saw he had his hand over his mouth; figured he was shouting instructions to his players. ;) Thought for sure he was gonna get a T.

How do we know what he was saying to the official?

Peace

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.

I am sure he was saying something to the official, I just am not confident to say he was using profanity or saying something totally inappropriate. We just do not know unless the audio picked up something. And in watching it, all I can do is assume.

Peace

Exactly. How do we know he wasn't asking Cartmell if he wanted to join him for beers at the pub across the street in an hour?? :rolleyes:

Kudos to Cartmell for just ignoring him. Whacking him in those last few seconds would have just given him a bigger stage to throw his tantrum.

"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.

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

It was a foul
 

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?

Color commentator and play by play never said that, they said he stepped inbounds and that's a violation. They got it right.

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.


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.

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

Why was my post about Bob Knight deleted? Is there some rule I'm not aware of that I violated?

Furthermore, it seemed to me that this whistle was sounded because one of the officials got confused by the clock continuing to run following the made goal by Missouri. He had to be thinking of the rule for the 2nd half.
However, there was a quick discussion about whether or not to permit substitutions by both teams following this whistle. The crew got it right and allowed the subs to enter. Again that restriction only applies in the 2nd half or OT.


Rule 3, Section 4
Art. 6. Substitutions shall not be permitted when the game clock has been
stopped after successful field goals in the last 59.9 seconds of the second half
or any extra period and before the clock has been properly started except for the
following:
a. Those substitutions permitted by rule including, but not limited to,
injury, blood, violation, foul, disqualification, timeout , or for a lost,
displaced or irritated contact lens or displaced eyeglasses. There shall be
no substitutions during the dead ball period when the clock is stopped to
correct a timing mistake or for an inadvertent whistle. After the clock has
been properly started following a made basket, then all substitution rules
apply.

I am not trying to make an issue out of this just an observation...I don't know what he said...you are right on that account.

Old enough to know that your question is a complete non sequitor.

:rolleyes: