TV Commentators
 

Much is made about how TV commentators help fuel ignorance of rules and officiating in general.

Just heard Clark Kellog use legal guarding position during the UK-Louisville game. Brought a :D to my face. Maybe there is hope yet.

In relation to the other talking heads, CK is about as rule knowledgeable as they come.

OK - that makes 1.

I noted the same comment, however, I think it was in the context of a block/charge, and Clark said, "He wasn't there set in a legal guarding position."

You don't have to be "set" in order to have LGP. For those with a DVR, it is at the 16:55 mark of the first half.

CK is one of my faves. A few years ago, he emphasized on the air, "there is no over the back, it's ON the back." So, yes, there are indeed those that know what they're talking about.

Agreed he's up there; however, keep listening to him.

He's closer, but still wrong.

There's no "ON the back" either.

True, though "on" doesn't perpetuate a myth like "over" does.

My son tried to tell me, "it's just slang, Dad." When I pointed out the downfall of this phrase, he asked me what I would call these rebounding fouls.

"Five choices (using a finger for each one): pushing, illegal contact, holding, blocking, or hand checking, whatever applies, though you probably won't see much blocking or hand checking on rebounds. Just pushing and illegal, mostly."

Of course, there could be intentional and flagrant, too. I can't recall ever seeing a double foul on a rebound, though I'm sure it's been done.

One of the announcers in the Georgetown/Providence game (the lady) stated that there was "continuation" on one of the and1 drives to the basket. Her partner quickly corrected her and stated it was in "the gather" of the try.

Tear came to my eye...:D

And on the other half of the spectrum, we have Dan Dakich (during the Indiana/Ohio State game). Referring to a spot throw in: "2 things the inbounder has to know, 1 - he cannot move, or it's a travel." :mad:

I was just about to post this one as well, but I wasn't sure who the announcer to credit with the ignorance was.

Well to be fair, it doesn't help clarify matters when you see DI officials give the traveling signal for this violation.

Listen to the commentator on this play from the end of the Wagner @ Santa Clara game.
Should Wagner’s circus fallaway buzzer beater have counted? - The Dagger - NCAABBlog - Yahoo! Sports

He was...
 

...pretty emphatic. My question is, was he right? Is that shot like a field-goal where if the ball passes over even the edge of the post (or, in this case, the corner of the backboard), it's as if it has passed over the full object?

Nothing But Net ...
 

Ortiz's shot was all luck. Bird's was all skill.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YtVsAUM2Rs4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was tough for me to see very well, but I have to say that from the shooter's position, it certainly looks like the ball passed over the backboard.

CK came and spoke to a local association here in Columbus.
He asked what officials hated the most. They explained to him about people not understanding the rules, etc.
Plus they explained to him the "terms" people use that are not fouls or proper.

Certainly looks like the @ Santa Clara basket should've been disallowed for a violation of NCAA 9-3-2: "The ball shall be out of bounds when any part of the ball passes over the backboard from any direction."

When In Doubt, Don't Be ...
 

"Certainly" is an awfully strong word. After viewing this several times, I would have used the word "probably". Should officials make calls when something "probably" happens? I know more about multilinear algebra than I do about NCAA rules so I don't know if this was a reviewable play. If the call had to be made in "real time" then, in my opinion, it was a tough call, either way.

Not reviewable as to whether or not there was a violation. They could've gone to the monitor to ensure the shot was released in time, but couldn't have come out and waived off the basket for a violation afterward. (NCAA 2-13-7-c). I agree it's a very tough call in real time, but it looks like, in my opinion, and by virtue of getting to watching it multiple times, that some part of the ball passed over some part of the backboard.
On another note, it'd have been interesting to see the endline camera angle on this, as they have one at either end sitting in a rolling chair for men's games, if I remember correctly from attending quite a few games there.

It's A Game Of Inches, Actually, Fractions Of Inches ...
 

Agree. But I don't fault the officials, who didn't have the ability to look at the play multiple times, like we did.

Man, is it easy to officiate plays on my computer monitor. And I got an new eighteen inch monitor for Christmas to replace my fifteen inch monitor. That should make me a much better official.