Two mistakes by the G'town/S. FL crew
 

The crew in the G'town/S. FL game this morning at MSG didn't have a great performance. It didn't impact the outcome as the Hoyas won by 20, but they made two fairly serious errors.

1. In the early part of the 2nd half G'town made a jumpshot from the wing which the convering official clearly marks as a two. The shooter had the edge of his shoe just barely touching the arc. S. FL inbounded and went to the other end where one of its players was fouled and awarded FTs. The first FT was successful. At this point the officials decided to consult the monitor and have a look at the previous jumpshot to clarify if it was worth 2pts or 3pts. :( I guess when you work at MSG in the 2nd round of the Big East Conf. tourney, you can ignore the rule governing the CE timeframe. :eek:

2. Vaughn fouled out with 9:10 remaining and Monroe was on the bench with four fouls, so in comes the 3rd string center, Sims, who rarely plays. Shortly thereafter S. FL attempts a four footer and Sims extends his hand up through the ring from below and blocks the approaching try for goal. No whistle. It was pretty obvious as the net was pushed up by his hand. Stan Heath seemed so dumbfounded that the violation was missed that although he argued, he couldn't really throw a tantrum. He was just in disbelief.

I was trying to figure out if their was a change in the uniform rules during the Quinnipiac/Robert Morris Game. Some players were wearing white shirts under yellow jersey's and some were wearing yellow shirts under yellow jersey's:confused:

I'm just a fan here, but does shooting the first of two free throws constitute "the second live ball?"

Absolutely. You got it. After the ball becomes live for that FT attempt it is too late to correct the possible error in the value of the previous try.

Got you. I knew that it had to be before the second live ball, but I was thinking that since the clock was still stopped, the ball was still dead. I wonder if that's what the crew was thinking.

Believe me, guys at the D1 level know the basics of live/dead ball.

They either got caught up in the moment and forgot to consider if they could still correct this before going over for a look or simply decided to try to do it anyway and justify it later as "it was the right thing to do" or "it was technically a bit late to fix that, but getting the proper value was more important than following the rule to the letter." In other words try to couch it as a spirit of the rule situation. I can't bring myself to agree with that type of reasoning.

I can forgive just about any error in judgment, but imo failing to administer the game correctly is inexcusable.

He had to stay outside the tantrum?:D

Grumble, grumble...the consequence of posting while tired. Fixed now.

If I am reading the NCAA book correctly, this was actually handled correctly. I'll copy the two pertinent rules here.

Now, per my reading, if the officials simply declare it to be a 2-pointer by their judgement, then they may go to the monitor AT ANY TIME to determine whether it was a 2-pointer or a 3-pointer. On the other hand, had they done something like (and excuse the hyperbole, but it's the only real example I can think of) say that a shot released from behind the 3-point line and on which the defense commits basket interference can only count for 2, then that would be a correctable error situation.

In the interest of full disclosure, however, I do not officiate at the college level, and perhaps there are rulings or interpretations that have been released contrary to my reading. If so, I'm sure I'll be corrected soon. :)

No, that is not the correct understanding of how the CE rule works.

Note the rule specifying the 2nd live ball time-line.

The only way this is correctable at any time is if the scorer had made the error and not put up the number of points indicated by the officials. That makes it a scorer's error.

I believe that NCref is claiming that this isn't a CE. Note how 2-13-2-b-3 specifically references the CE rule, while 2-13-2-b-1 does not. This tells me that 2-13-2-b-1, namely using video to determine if a shot is a 2 or 3, is not a CE. I'm still not aware of what, if any, is the time limit, if this is the case.

Additionally, this is an "error in judgment" which according to 2-12-1-e can not be a CE.

2/3 pt shots do fall under Correctable Errors:
2.12.1e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.
Note: In order for this to be a correctable error, the official must have erred in counting or canceling a successful try for goal according to a rule (i.e., after basket interference or goaltending, incorrectly counting or failing to cancel a score or counting a three-point goal instead of a two-point goal). A correctable error does not involve an error in judgment.

2/3 pt shots are not part of the excluded list:
2.13 Art. 7. The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as:
a. Determine who committed a foul or whether a foul occurred. Exception:
A flagrant foul
b. Determine whether basket interference or goaltending occurred.
c. Determine whether a violation occurred.
d. Determine whether the ball was released before the sounding of the shotclock horn, except as in 2-13.3.b.

I guess where I'm getting hung up is the part that says a correctable error is not an error in judgement, which would seem to suggest to me that the case you've mentioned is not in fact considered a correctable error.

The NCAA rulebook has a section dealing specifically with the use of the monitor (2-13). The time frame for using the monitor is the same as that of the correctable error. This adds consistency for the officials. The play in question (2/3 point basket) is not a correctable error (NCAA 2-12).

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)

I agree with Jurassic.

I won't even make you scroll up.

Why are you bashing the big dogs? Don't you know that can ruin your career?