UO-WSU New Year's Eve 2-OT Game

[JPaco54]

does not #11 take 3 steps to the basket at the end...no travel call?

[Tio]

This ruling was incorrect...

Per the AR 272 in the NCAA casebook

When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

This ruling was incorrect...

Per the AR 272 in the NCAA casebook

When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored.

This ruling was absolutely correct. They were unable to inbound the ball at this point. Had they called a timeout, you'd be correct.

[Tio]

Snaq - No disrespect, but I will accept the interpretation from the NCAA.

From 1/5/10 bulletin from Ed Bilik:

When a delay by a jubilant follower(s) or bench personnel before player activity has been terminated does not
prevent the ball from being put in play promptly or does not interfere with continuous play, the delay shall be
ignored, order shall be restored and play shall be resumed

If you watch the tape, Oregon did not make any attempt to inbound the ball prior to the whistle for the technical foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

Snaq - No disrespect, but I will accept the interpretation from the NCAA.

From 1/5/10 bulletin from Ed Bilik:

When a delay by a jubilant follower(s) or bench personnel before player activity has been terminated does not
prevent the ball from being put in play promptly or does not interfere with continuous play, the delay shall be
ignored, order shall be restored and play shall be resumed

If you watch the tape, Oregon did not make any attempt to inbound the ball prior to the whistle for the technical foul.

I don't take anything here as disrespectful, but I appreciate the gesture.

Did this bulletin claim elsewhere that the officials were incorrect? I did watch the tape, and you'll see one OR player start running to get in position to take a throw-in pass. They were not going to call time out. I did notice the player with the ball didn't run to throw it in, but it could be for any variety of reasons.

The fact is, unless they request a TO, he has a short time to get the ball in play. There were too many players on the court at this point, and the resulting confusion explains the hesitation, IMO.

Again, if the bulletin claims the officials were not correct, fine. Otherwise, I stand by my opinion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Tio

When a delay by a jubilant follower(s) or bench personnel before player activity has been terminated does not
prevent the ball from being put in play promptly or does not interfere with continuous play, the delay shall be ignored, order shall be restored and play shall be resumed.

What's our recourse in a NFHS game, for any, and all, situations similar to those mentioned in this NCAA statement?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Tio

This ruling was incorrect...

Per the AR 272 in the NCAA casebook

When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored.

Not according to the people who matter! Namely those who run the PAC-10 Conference.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Updated: January 21, 2010, 7:13 PM ET
Disputed foul in Oregon game will stand


Associated Press


SPOKANE, Wash. -- A controversial technical foul that cost Washington State a basketball victory over Oregon will not be overturned.
WSU athletic director Jim Sterk said a review of the call by the Pacific-10 Conference concluded the foul call was correct and Oregon's win would stand.
Washington State appeared to have won the Dec. 31 game in Pullman when they scored with 0.3 of a second left in the first overtime, and several WSU bench players and at least one fan stepped onto the court.
The game officials ruled that stepping onto the court prevented continuous play, and awarded Oregon a technical foul and two free throws. The free throws tied the game and the Ducks won in the second overtime.
Sterk said the Cougars have no other recourse.

[Adam]

Glad to see they were backed up. That's how I saw the video.