Hmmm, I wonder if anyone posted that information: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post667634 :cool::rolleyes:

I've looked all through 2-13, but I don't see any reference to a time frame for using the monitor, UNLESS what you're going to the monitor for is a correctable error.

And sorry BNR for saying again what you said you thought I was trying to say... :p

The monitor is a tool for rectifying correctable error situations. Since 2/3 point shots fall under the CE rule, the use of the monitor still needs to fall within the time constraint parameters.

Yeah, what he said! :D

While I am, admittedly, a little skeptical of all this still, I can buy this explanation and live with it.

Plus, I'm getting on a plane headed for Florida in a few hours, so I can live with most anything. Now where'd I put that bottle opener...

Yep... The Statue of limitations ended when the ball was placed at the disposal of the FT shooter. I agree with Nevada... kicking a rule is indefensible. Imagine if this was a 1 point game and they changed from a 2 to a 3.... this would be getting a lot more press if that were the case.

I have seen the basket interference play where a defender goes up through the cylinder. This is a HARD play! Usually, the center and trail get surprised on this play (the call needs to be made by one of them). I'd be interested to see the C & T positioning and I bet you the C especially got disengaged with the play.

A similar play happened in the Pac-10 last year and was similarly called an Incorrect No Call.

I dispute the authenticity of the above statement as stringently as possible.

From the 2010 NCAA Case Book:

A.R. 30. A1 releases a try for goal at the expiration of time for the game.
The official rules the field goal to be a successful two-point goal.
Before an official goes to a courtside monitor to confirm the
status of the play, the coach from Team A requests a correctable
error on the grounds that the goal was counted erroneously and
three points should have been awarded.
RULING: When there is a reading of zeros and after making a call on
the playing court, the officials shall be required to use the courtside
monitor to ascertain whether the try for field goal was released before
or after the reading of zeros on the game clock when it is necessary to
determine the outcome of the game. The officials may use the courtside
monitor to determine whether a try for goal was a two- or threepoint
attempt. The officials shall notify the coaches of both teams of
their intention to use the courtside monitor for this purpose. When
the coach’s appeal is ruled to be incorrect, a 75-second timeout shall
be charged or a 30-second timeout when a 75-second timeout is not
available in games not involving the electronic-media timeout format.
In games involving the electronic-media timeout format, either a 60-
or 30-second timeout shall be charged to his or her team. When that
timeout exceeds the allotted number, an administrative technical foul
shall be assessed to the offending team.
(Rule 2-13.2.b.1 and .3 and 2-13.3.a)

"I strenuously object."

Overruled.

Sit down, counselor.

:D

And STFU.



Or else.

Your're Tardy to the Party NV. :p
I already posted the applicable rule. :cool:

I know the rule and saw your post. Remember I started this thread and was the one who originally labeled the crew's handling of the situation a mistake.

With my most recent post I was trying to find something in the NCAA Case Book, which spelled it out more clearly for those posters who believe that 2/3 is not a CE.

A quote from the "galactically stupid"??? ;)

Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.

It's the difference between "paper officiating" and "on court officiating." :D

http://www.palzoo.net/file/pic/gallery/7272_view.jpg

Nah, just Iowa.

Although...

(Geeze Snaqs, what did you do to deserve this treatment today? :D)