Shot clock violation in Pitt-Xavier Game

[bas2456]

Shouldn't the horn and "0" be simultaneous since they don't show tenths of a second?

And if you watch the replay, you can clearly see the ball still in contact with the player's hand well after the clock hits zero.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Shouldn't the horn and "0" be simultaneous since they don't show tenths of a second?

And if you watch the replay, you can clearly see the ball still in contact with the player's hand well after the clock hits zero.

No they are not simultaneous, and unless the replay you saw was real time, and didn't see a realtime replay during the broadcast, then how long is "well after"?

[bas2456]

Watch this video.

YouTube - Kyle Korver Beats the Shot Clock to Ice the Game for the Jazz

I know it's NBA, but 0 and horn sure seem simultaneous to me.

[bas2456]

They didn't show a real-time replay and the TV I was watching on didn't have DVR, so I couldn't rewind it.

The slow-motion replay showed there were at least 3 frames between 0 and the release of the shot. Not sure how much time that equates to, but that kind of play could have a real impact on the game. The play in question gave Xavier a one point lead at the time, and the way that game was going, it very well could have stayed a one point game.

If this sort of play isn't reviewable, I think it should be. They shouldn't have to find a loophole in the rules to get a call right.

[Lotto]

Here's the NCAA rule that says that this call is *not* reviewable:

2-13.6 The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as:
d. Whether the ball was released before the sounding of the shot-clock horn, except as in 2-13.3.b.

The exception only occurs where there are zeros on the game clock:

2-13.3 When there is a reading of zeros on the game clock and after making a call on the playing court, the officials shall use such available equipment in the following situations:
b. 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.

[bas2456]

Thanks for that citation, Lotto.

i still think they should look at changing this rule, because many times, it's clear one way or the other. With HD technology being pretty prevalent, I would bet they would be able to get this call correct nearly 100% of the time

[refguy]

Originally Posted by bas2456

They didn't show a real-time replay and the TV I was watching on didn't have DVR, so I couldn't rewind it.

The slow-motion replay showed there were at least 3 frames between 0 and the release of the shot. Not sure how much time that equates to, but that kind of play could have a real impact on the game. The play in question gave Xavier a one point lead at the time, and the way that game was going, it very well could have stayed a one point game.

If this sort of play isn't reviewable, I think it should be. They shouldn't have to find a loophole in the rules to get a call right.

They didn't review the block charge play just before that either. Instead of a turnover and the fouls being 5-4, Pitt put 2 points on the board and fouls were 6-3. And it was their best defender's 4th foul. Both teams had multiple chances to win.

[bas2456]

I think there's a difference in reviewing fouls because they aren't black and white like whether or not the ball was in or out of the shooter's hand before the clock hits 0.

[Cleefy]

It's good being able to comment on these situations now from down under. We've recently launched a new 24/7 sports channel, and I get to see a fair bit of NCAA.

Just thought I'd chime in and say that the ball definitely hadn't left his hand. I don't know your rules though...

[refguy]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I think there's a difference in reviewing fouls because they aren't black and white like whether or not the ball was in or out of the shooter's hand before the clock hits 0.

Some fouls are like the one I mentioned.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I think there's a difference in reviewing fouls because they aren't black and white like whether or not the ball was in or out of the shooter's hand before the clock hits 0.

why? Shot clock violation is just a violation like a travel, basket interference, three seconds, or backcourt. If you could review that shot then why not review everything. There is a point you just cant do it... Look at football and what they have (look at new pro rules)... If all these palys were subject to review the game would take all night and have no flow...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bas2456

Watch this video.

YouTube - Kyle Korver Beats the Shot Clock to Ice the Game for the Jazz

I know it's NBA, but 0 and horn sure seem simultaneous to me.

On some clocks that's true. On some it's not.

At least according to a lenghty explanation given on eofficials in discussing the answer to one of this season's NCAAW quiz questions.

Frankly, I think there's way too much review. Lots of calls happen (or don't happen) during a game -- the teams need to "overcome" those calls.

Only calls that happen at the end of the game (and I admit it's tough to come up with a specific definition of this), where the team doesn't have a chance to "overcome" it should be allowed.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

On some clocks that's true. On some it's not.

At least according to a lenghty explanation given on eofficials in discussing the answer to one of this season's NCAAW quiz questions.

Frankly, I think there's way too much review. Lots of calls happen (or don't happen) during a game -- the teams need to "overcome" those calls.

Only calls that happen at the end of the game (and I admit it's tough to come up with a specific definition of this), where the team doesn't have a chance to "overcome" it should be allowed.

If it's not true for all clocks, then shouldn't an effort be made to make it true or not true for all clocks?

There is alot of review, and this is a debate that could go on for days, so I'll just throw in my 2 cents now. There is alot of review, in all sports. Even baseball has succumbed to reviewing a certain play. Some don't like how much review there is. But there's an increasing desire to get the calls right. If you have the technology, why not review it and make sure you get the correct call? That way, you don't have people wondering, "what if?". You know you've got the right call, and you can move on.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by bas2456

If it's not true for all clocks, then shouldn't an effort be made to make it true or not true for all clocks?

There is alot of review, and this is a debate that could go on for days, so I'll just throw in my 2 cents now. There is alot of review, in all sports. Even baseball has succumbed to reviewing a certain play. Some don't like how much review there is. But there's an increasing desire to get the calls right. If you have the technology, why not review it and make sure you get the correct call? That way, you don't have people wondering, "what if?". You know you've got the right call, and you can move on.

Where does it stop though? Pretty soon we'll just be referees who have earpieces to the TV truck where the officials will tell us when to blow whistles lol

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bas2456

If it's not true for all clocks, then shouldn't an effort be made to make it true or not true for all clocks?

You might be able to get away with this at the NBA level, but not anywhere else. There's no way to regulate how clocks are manufactured. At the NBA level, with a limited number of venues, they could enforce this. College? Doubtful.

High school? Not a chance.

Violations should not be reviewable. You gonna add whether or not he stepped on the line to the list of reviewable plays?