NCAA shot clock question

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I was coming on here to talk about the shot clock play but in regards to going to the monitor. I didn't think that they could go to the monitor on a play to determine possession. They could have gone if the shot clock operator reset by accident and they thought it should not have been reset. Basically a "mistake or malfunction" has to take place and neither did. I also didn't think they should have gone to the monitor on the fast break foul (that was close to being intentional). You can go to the monitor if you think a flagrant foul possibly took place but it is hard for me to believe that they were anywhere close to thinking that it was a flagrant. I think they went to the monitor for the sole purpose of seeing if an intentional foul should be called, which is not legal. I've seen this happen a number of times through out the tournament (and regular season) so maybe a bulletin came out that I am not aware of.

I thought they did the right thing in both instances. In the shot clock play, Butler was to "retain" possession, but the officials noticed the shot clock was reset. They are allowed to go to the monitor to see if an error had occured (the reset). The monitor verified that there had indeed been a change of possession (Duke player had sole possession for a moment), and that the shot clock was properly reset.

On the foul call, I believe the calling official was trailing the play, and was straight-lined from seeing the Duke defender. He properly called the foul, and because of the contact causing a player going to go hard to the floor, was then able to go to the monitor to see if a flagrant had occured. Once they review the play, they are allowed to "upgrade" the foul to an intentional or flagrant. One thing they cannot do is call a flagrant, for example, then review it and change (downgrade) it to a common foul. As much as I was rooting for Butler, I thought the officials got it right.

Good use of replay in both instances, especially in a high-profile, close game.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I thought they did the right thing in both instances. In the shot clock play, Butler was to "retain" possession, but the officials noticed the shot clock was reset. They are allowed to go to the monitor to see if an error had occured (the reset). The monitor verified that there had indeed been a change of possession (Duke player had sole possession for a moment), and that the shot clock was properly reset.

On the foul call, I believe the calling official was trailing the play, and was straight-lined from seeing the Duke defender. He properly called the foul, and because of the contact causing a player going to go hard to the floor, was then able to go to the monitor to see if a flagrant had occured. Once they review the play, they are allowed to "upgrade" the foul to an intentional or flagrant. One thing they cannot do is call a flagrant, for example, then review it and change (downgrade) it to a common foul. As much as I was rooting for Butler, I thought the officials got it right.

Good use of replay in both instances, especially in a high-profile, close game.

If he was straightlined from seeing the Duke player, was he also straightlined from the contact? I don't remember the exact specifics of the play, and maybe he could see the contact.

He got it right, but I hope it wasn't because he guessed.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bas2456

If he was straightlined from seeing the Duke player, was he also straightlined from the contact? I don't remember the exact specifics of the play, and maybe he could see the contact.

He got it right, but I hope it wasn't because he guessed.

I doubt he guessed on the foul itself, as it looked like the contact across the arms was obvious as the players separated. What he may not have seen, at the moment the defender slid in front of the Butler player, was whether there was any additional contact that would warrant the flagrant or intentional call.

There's also a chance the official saw the whole play, but went to the monitor anyway just to make sure at that critical part of the game. They have that tool available; why not use it, especially at that point?

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I thought they did the right thing in both instances. In the shot clock play, Butler was to "retain" possession, but the officials noticed the shot clock was reset. They are allowed to go to the monitor to see if an error had occured (the reset). The monitor verified that there had indeed been a change of possession (Duke player had sole possession for a moment), and that the shot clock was properly reset.

If they came away from the monitor and put 23 on the shot clock then I could see it being okay to go to the monitor. However because they left it at 35 means that there was no "mistake". The shot clock operator properly reset the shot clock when he/she was supposed to. Now I suppose you could say that they came together and said "the player never had possession so lets go to the monitor and see how much time should be on the shot clock". Then they went to the monitor and saw that the player actually did have possession so the reset was correct and left alone.

I am trying to understand the rule so that I do it correct when I am on the court. This might actually be the proper protocol based on AR.35 "...since the officials are unable to determine if the shot clock was improperly reset they are permitted to use the monitor to make this determination...". I guess this means that officials can go to the monitor at any point in the game to see if a player gained possession in order to determine if the shot clock should or should not have been reset. I'm not sure that this is what was intended when the rule was written, but maybe it was.

There was a play in the North Carolina/Rhode Island NIT game were the ball was batted toward the basket on a rebound and it hit the ring but IMO it was not a try so the shot clock should not have been reset. A shooting foul was called shortly after when they really shouldn't have had the chance to be shooting. An official on the court did recognize the situation at hand and discussed it with another official but they did not go to the monitor. At the time I was thinking oh well I guess they can't go to the monitor and that was a really difficult play. In hindsight I guess they absolutely should have gone to the monitor.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

On the foul call, I believe the calling official was trailing the play, and was straight-lined from seeing the Duke defender. He properly called the foul, and because of the contact causing a player going to go hard to the floor, was then able to go to the monitor to see if a flagrant had occured. Once they review the play, they are allowed to "upgrade" the foul to an intentional or flagrant. One thing they cannot do is call a flagrant, for example, then review it and change (downgrade) it to a common foul. As much as I was rooting for Butler, I thought the officials got it right.

Good use of replay in both instances, especially in a high-profile, close game.

I think the rule should be rewritten so that officials are allowed to go to the monitor to see if a foul was flagrant OR intentional. Otherwise some officials will do it anyway for that purpose (under the guise of flagrant) and it will not be used consistently across the country.

[M&M Guy]

Well, let me start off by saying I've done very few (ok, 1) games with a monitor.

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I am trying to understand the rule so that I do it correct when I am on the court. This might actually be the proper protocol based on AR.35 "...since the officials are unable to determine if the shot clock was improperly reset they are permitted to use the monitor to make this determination...". I guess this means that officials can go to the monitor at any point in the game to see if a player gained possession in order to determine if the shot clock should or should not have been reset. I'm not sure that this is what was intended when the rule was written, but maybe it was.

As I understand it, there are plays that shall be reviewed, and plays that may be reviewed. All others cannot be reviewed. The key is knowing the difference. In this case, correcting a timing error is one of the plays that officials may use the monitor. Perhaps the officials didn't see the change of possession, but did notice the reset of the shot clock, and wanted to check the monitor to see if there was a timing mistake. They checked it, saw the shot was indeed reset properly, because of the COP. My guess is if the shot clock had not been reset, they might have left it alone because they were not sure about the COP. The other possibility is they did see the change, and were checking to see if time should've come off the shot clock (maybe 2 or 3 seconds) based on not knowing how close the COP happened to the held ball. But you are right they cannot go to the monitor to simply see if there was a possession change. The key is knowing exactly why you are checking, and if that reason is specifically allowed by rule.

Originally Posted by All_Heart

There was a play in the North Carolina/Rhode Island NIT game were the ball was batted toward the basket on a rebound and it hit the ring but IMO it was not a try so the shot clock should not have been reset. A shooting foul was called shortly after when they really shouldn't have had the chance to be shooting. An official on the court did recognize the situation at hand and discussed it with another official but they did not go to the monitor. At the time I was thinking oh well I guess they can't go to the monitor and that was a really difficult play. In hindsight I guess they absolutely should have gone to the monitor.

I'm not following - are you saying (a) the shot clock should've expired before they foul occured? Or (b) they called it a shooting foul on the bat? I believe in (a) the monitor can only be used to correct timing issues in the same shot clock period, and in (b) you cannot use it to determine what type of personal foul (shooting vs. non-shooting).

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I think the rule should be rewritten so that officials are allowed to go to the monitor to see if a foul was flagrant OR intentional. Otherwise some officials will do it anyway for that purpose (under the guise of flagrant) and it will not be used consistently across the country.

I don't see that being much of an issue, as officials at that level can pretty tell an intentional vs. common. But it's harder to tell the flagrant vs. intentional level, or even the off-ball crap that's missed altogether that there is a need for the monitor.

[rockyroad]

They went to the monitor because they believed the shot clock operator did make an error by resetting...turns out he didn't. That's what the rule is for...and they went to the monitor on the foul to be sure that it was/was not a flagrant - they then determined it wasn't. I seriously doubt they were looking to see if it was intentional as that is not how the rule is written.

In short, All_Heart, they did it exactly right both times, and reviewing those two plays should help you understand those rules better.