NCAA Tourney - Marquette v. Missouri

[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.

[grunewar]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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).

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

[zm1283]

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.

Thanks.

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[GoodwillRef]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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) 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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

JAR, could be.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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!

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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."

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by actuary77

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sseltser

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.

NO!!!

Peace

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

NO!!!

Peace

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