Shot clock violation in Pitt-Xavier Game
 

Are possible shot clock violations reviewable by video?

If they went to the monitor, they would see clearly that they missed the call on the court. Can they correct this?

I saw the play too and thought it was a violation.

I'm not familiar enough w/ NCAA rules however to know the answer, but I would think it's not reviewable.

I'm pretty sure it's not reviewable.

They can determine if there is a malfunction with the shot clock. I am not sure that took place here though.

Peace

Are you sure it was clear? Just because the clock SHOWS zero doesn't mean it would be a violation until the horn.

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.

I've been told by a few D1 officials about this and the sentiment is this:

They must state that the crew is going to the monitor to review a "timing error;" not for a violation. They can then check to see if the ball hit the rim or not. It's a technicality on words by saying they are checking a timing error.

Rule 2 Sec 13 Art 2c
Timing
4. Determine whether the shot clock failed to properly start, stop, set
or reset or that the shot clock has malfunctioned. Determination is
based on the judgment of the official. The mistake or malfunctioning
problem may only be corrected in the shot clock period in which
it occurred. Any activity after the mistake or malfunction has been
committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled, excluding
a flagrant personal foul, intentional personal foul or any technical
foul.

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"?

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.

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.

Not reviewable unless the game clock shows 0:00
 

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.

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

See my previous post in this other thread: http://forum.officiating.com/590838-post42.html

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.